Uncategorized Archives - Page 165 of 342 - Progressive Policy Institute

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 2: Jumpstart a New Generation of Manufacturing Entrepreneurs

Posted on January 24, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The number of large U.S. manufacturing facilities has dropped by more than a third since 2000, devastating many communities where factories were the lifeblood of the local economy.

One promising way to revive America’s manufacturing might is not by going big but by going small – and going local. Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, have the potential to launch a new generation of manufacturing startups producing customized, locally-designed goods in a way overseas mega-factories can’t match. To jumpstart this revolution, we need to provide local manufacturing entrepreneurs with access to the latest technologies to test out their ideas. The Grassroots Manufacturing Act would create federally-supported centers offering budding entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized firms access to the latest 3D printing and robotics equipment.

THE CHALLENGE: NEXT-GENERATION U.S. MANUFACTURING NEEDS A JUMPSTART.

The collapse in manufacturing employment and wages drove a stake through the heart of America. Conventional factories making commodity high-volume products could not compete with mega-sized plants in low-wage countries. That’s why many of America’s largest and most productive plants have closed or shrunk sharply since 2000, devastating many less dense areas where local factories were the main source of jobs.

Yet, for all the talk of an intangible data-driven economy, physical industries such as manufacturing and agriculture are still essential to prosperity – especially outside our largest cities. These are, however, precisely the industries where investment, incomes, and jobs have lagged behind, hurting millions of working Americans across the country.

U.S. manufacturing productivity is lagging.

One problem is that many small and medium-size factories have been stuck with old technologies and aging equipment because the owners don’t have the funds to modernize. As a result, productivity in U.S. factories has lagged, the price charged by domestic factories has risen, and the penetration of Chinese products into domestic markets has continued to increase. In 2017, imports from China, adjusted for inflation, rose by 9.4 percent. By comparison, the gross output of U.S. factories rose by only 2.2 percent.

Digitally-assisted manufacturing is the wave of the future, but investment in these technologies is also lagging.

Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies are potentially game changers for U.S. manufacturing. Local factories using 3D printing, robotics, or similar advances could,for instance, produce customized and locally-designed products – better-fitting clothing, more-comfortable furniture, and customized equipment for businesses – at a price overseas mega-factories can’t match.

Moreover, there’s increasing evidence that digitization can open up new markets and create new jobs. Even the most automated technologies require loads of skilled workers to do the more complicated tasks machines can’t handle. Indeed, the newest term is “cobots” – collaborative robots designed to work with humans (rather than replace them).

Despite these potential rewards, however, the U.S. risks falling behind in this crucial race for next-generation manufacturing. The America Competes Act of 2010 authorized federal loan guarantees for small or medium-sized manufacturers for the use or production of innovative technologies. But no such loan guarantees have been issued.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership is an excellent program, but its FY2018 funding of $140 million is 15 percent lower, in real terms, than its funding in 1998. The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017, signed in the last days of the Obama Administration, does offer limited funding for a couple of centers to explore automated manufacturing. However, that’s not enough for a country the size of the United States – not when Japan and Germany are putting much more money into pushing their manufacturing sectors into the future.

Now is the time to beef up our current support for local manufacturing entrepreneurs and create a new wave of digitally-assisted, high-wage manufacturing jobs around the country.

THE GOAL: CREATE 50,000 ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING STARTUPS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS USING DIGITALLY-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES – AND ONE MILLION NEW JOBS.

Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies will boost productivity, cut costs, and increase flexibility. In the process, that will open up new markets for customized and semi-customized goods.
We advocate a national push to create 50,000 new manufacturing startups across the country to encourage the rebirth of American manufacturing ingenuity at the local level. If each startup employs 20 people, on average, that will mean one million new jobs. The goal is to get scale on new production technologies across the country – not just in one or two centers. We are not talking about industrial policy, or protectionism, or bringing back old and dying industries. Rather, the goal is to help accelerate the next wave of manufacturing prosperity.

THE PLAN: SEED THE CREATION OF STATE AND LOCAL DIGITAL MANUFACTURING CENTERS AND SUPPORT BUDDING MANUFACTURING ENTREPRENEURS.

We advocate a three-part program:

1. Increase access to technology.

It’s essential to provide local manufacturing entrepreneurs access to the latest technologies to test out their ideas. We propose a Manufacturing Grassroots Act that would offer state and local governments funds to set up centers with the latest 3D printing and robotics equipment – along with all the necessary software and training. Budding entrepreneurs and small businesses can apply for access on an “all-comers” basis, to give everyone an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of wealth creation.

2. Guarantee federal loans.

Existing small and medium-size manufacturers need help getting funding for the adoption of the new technologies. That means federal loan guarantees, based on the existing but unutilized program mentioned earlier from the 2010 America Competes Act. It may also mean setting up a new program for low-interest loans to manufacturers who want to digitize.

3. Fund federal research.

At the national level, Congress should budget $300 million to fund federal research to develop the underlying standards for online manufacturing platforms, just like the government developed the underlying standards for the Internet. This work is already going on, but it needs to be accelerated.

ENDNOTES

Michael Mandel, “The Rise of the Internet of Goods: A New Perspective on the Digital Future for Manufacturers,” Progressive Policy Institute and Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, August 2018.

Osborne for The 74, “Public School Choice – Charters – Boosts Equal Educational Opportunity. Private School Choice – Vouchers – Destroys It. Which Do We Want?”

Posted on January 22, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As a wise person once said, our words think our thoughts for us. A quarter-century ago, then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich taught the Republican Party to be very deliberate in its choice of words. Ever since, Republicans have carefully avoided the word “vouchers” — which are not terribly popular — in favor of the phrase “school choice.”

Who can be against giving families a choice of schools? We all know that children learn differently, have different temperaments, and come from different backgrounds. So it’s only logical that different children need different types of schools. On top of that, families that get to choose are usually more committed to their schools, their children more serious about learning.

But there are different kinds of school choice, and the type most Republicans favor would dramatically accelerate inequality in American society.

Continue reading at The 74.

A Radically Pragmatic Idea for the 116th Congress: Take Yes for an Answer on Net Neutrality

Posted on January 22, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Net neutrality is the basic idea that all internet traffic must be treated equally on the network and no company should be able to block or throttle online traffic in order to gain a competitive leg-up. This is a pro-competitive, prophylactic policy to ensure internet providers don’t unfairly become gatekeepers for online services. It’s a sound bi-partisan pragmatic public policy agreement.

For the last two decades, different versions of net neutrality have bounced between Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the courts – and most recently the states – but the issue remains unresolved. Even today, the FCC’s most recent “Restoring Internet Freedom” order and local net neutrality rules in California and Vermont remain mired in court while Congress considers several different legislative approaches – none of which have been able to gain majority support.

This chaotic and uncertain approach drags down our economy, undermines investment needed to connect new communities and close the digital divide, and sucks up all the oxygen in the room so that other issues like increasing rural connectivity and reducing the digital divide, protecting elections from foreign interference, and finding ways to bring new competition to digital markets get crowded out. Economists estimate that the overhang of this debate drives away nearly $35 billion a year in network investment and consumer upgrades.

It is time for Congress to solve this problem for good by enacting a strong, pro-consumer net neutrality law – an outcome that is politically possible even in this era of maximalist gridlock and deeply divided government, given the broad consensus that has formed around the vital issue of ensuring an open internet.

Langhorne for The 74, “A D.C. School Meant to Inspire Teachers and Students”

Posted on January 17, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Artwork and projects decorate the light blue walls of Inspired Teaching Demonstration School, an inquiry-based learning public charter school now in its eighth year.

A colorful “body map,” with the organs labeled, covers the door of one prekindergarten classroom. On the wall outside the other pre-K classroom hang drawings of guitars because the class read a picture book about the childhood of Jimi Hendrix when learning about musical instruments. Down the hall, the 3-year-old class has been experimenting with paints, both watercolors and temperas.

Everything displayed on the walls of the three-story building on Douglas Street NE in D.C.’s Ward 5 is student-made.

“Teachers really value our creativity here,” says Takhari Millner, a seventh-grader who has been attending ITDS since kindergarten.

Ranked a tier-one public charter school by the D.C. Public Charter School Board, ITDS opened in 2011 and serves 472 students in prekindergarten through eighth grade. There’s two classes per grade, except for seventh and eighth grade, which will each expand from one class to two when the school reaches its roughly 525-student capacity in 2020. For the 2018-19 school year, ITDS received 1,745 applications for 125 spots. Its waiting list currently has 913 students.

ITDS students have consistently outperformed their peers in both the public charter school sector and District of Columbia Public Schools on state exams, yet test prep and standardization are the antithesis of the school’s model. Born out of a partnership with the Center for Inspired Teaching, ITDS operates a demonstration school for the best practices in inquiry-based teaching and active learning methods.

Continue reading at The 74.

PPI Launches Series of New Ideas for a ‘Do-Something’ Congress

Posted on January 16, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Dear Democratic Class of 2018,

Congratulations on your election to the U.S. House of Representatives! In addition to winning your own race, you are part of something larger – the first wave of a progressive resurgence in U.S. politics.

The midterm elections gave U.S. voters their first opportunity to react to the way Donald Trump has conducted himself in America’s highest office. Their verdict was an emphatic thumbs down. That’s an encouraging sign that our democracy’s antibodies are working to suppress the populist virus of demagoguery and extremism.

Now that Democrats have reclaimed the people’s House, what should they do with it? Some are tempted to use it mainly as a platform for resisting Trump and airing “unapologetically progressive” ideas that have no chance of advancing before the 2020 elections. We here at the Progressive Policy Institute think that would be huge missed opportunity.

If the voters increasingly are disgusted with their dissembling and divisive president, they seem even more fed up with Washington’s tribalism and broken politics. For pragmatic progressives, the urgent matter at hand is not to impeach Trump or to embroil the House in multiple and endless investigations. It’s to show Democrats are determined to put the federal government back in the business of helping Americans solve their problems.

We think the House Democratic Class of 2018 should adopt this simple mantra: “Get things done.” Tackle the backlog of big national problems that Washington has ignored: exploding deficits and debt; run-down, second-rate infrastructure; soaring health and retirement costs; climate change and more. And yes, getting things done should include slamming the brakes on Trump’s reckless trade wars, blocking GOP efforts to strip Americans of health care, as well as repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

PPI, a leading center for policy analysis and innovation, stands ready to help. We’re developing an extensive “Do Something” Agenda. Today, we are releasing the first in a series of concrete, actionable ideas designed expressly for Democrats who come to Washington to solve problems, not just to raise money and smite political enemies.

As you get settled into your new office, we’ll look for opportunities to acquaint you and your staff with these pragmatic, common-sense initiatives, and to discuss other ways we might be of service to you. That’s what we’re here for.

Regards,

Will Marshall
President
Progressive Policy Institute

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 1: “A Check on Trump’s Reckless Tariffs”

First and foremost, it’s time for Congress to start doing its job on trade. A key step is enacting the Trade Authority Protection (TAP) Act. This balanced legislation would rein in Trump’s abuse of delegated trade powers, require greater presidential accountability, and enable Congress to nullify irresponsible tariffs and trade restrictions.

A Radically Pragmatic Idea for the 116th Congress: Take “Yes” for an Answer on Net Neutrality

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 2: “Jumpstart a New Generation of Manufacturing Entrepreneurs”

The number of large U.S. manufacturing facilities has dropped by more than a third since 2000, devastating many communities where factories were the lifeblood of the local economy.

One promising way to revive America’s manufacturing might is not by going big but by going small – and going local. Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, have the potential to launch a new generation of manufacturing startups producing customized, locally-designed goods in a way overseas mega-factories can’t match. To jumpstart this revolution, we need to provide local manufacturing entrepreneurs with access to the latest technologies to test out their ideas. The Grassroots Manufacturing Act would create federally-supported centers offering budding entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized firms access to the latest 3D printing and robotics equipment.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 3: “End The Federal Bias Against Career Education”

As many as 4.4 million U.S. jobs are going unfilled due to shortages of workers with the right skills. Many of these opportunities are in so-called “middle-skill” occupations, such as IT or advanced manufacturing, where workers need some sort of post-secondary credential but not a four-year degree.

Expanding access to high-quality career education and training is one way to help close this “skills gap.” Under current law, however, many students pursuing short-term career programs are ineligible for federal financial aid that could help them afford their education. Pell grants, for instance, are geared primarily toward traditional college, which means older and displaced workers – for whom college is neither practicable nor desirable – lose out. Broadening the scope of the Pell grant program to shorter-term, high-quality career education would help more Americans afford the chance to upgrade their skills and grow the number of highly trained workers U.S. businesses need.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 4: “Expand Access to Telehealth Services in Medicare”

America’s massive health care industry faces three major challenges: how to cover everyone, reduce costs, and increase productivity. Telehealth – the use of technology to help treat patients remotely – may help address all three. Telehealth reduces the need for expensive real estate and enables providers to better leverage their current medical personnel to provide improved care to more people.

Despite its enormous potential, however, telehealth has hit legal snags over basic questions: who can practice it, what services can be delivered, and how it should be reimbursed. As is the case with any innovation, policymakers are looking to find the right balance between encouraging new technologies and protecting consumers – or, in this case, the health of patients.

Telehealth policy has come a long way in recent years, with major advances in the kinds of services that are delivered. Yet a simple change in Medicare policy could take the next step to increase access and encourage adoption of telehealth services. Currently, there are strict rules around where the patient and provider must be located at the time of service – these are known as “originating site” requirements – and patients are not allowed to be treated in their homes except in very special circumstances. To expand access to Telehealth, Congress could add the patient’s home as an originating site and allow Medicare beneficiaries in both urban and rural settings to access telehealth services in their homes.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 5: Make Rural America’s “Higher Education Deserts” Bloom

As many as 41 million Americans live in “higher education deserts” – at least half an hour’s drive from the nearest college or university and with limited access to community college. Many of these deserts are in rural America, which is one reason so much of rural America is less prosperous than it deserves to be.

The lack of higher education access means fewer opportunities for going back to school or improving skills. A less educated workforce in turn means communities have a tougher time attracting businesses and creating new jobs. Congress should work to eradicate higher education deserts. In particular, it can encourage new models of higher education – such as “higher education centers” and virtual colleges – that can fill this gap and bring more opportunity to workers and their communities. Rural higher education innovation grants are one potential way to help states pilot new approaches.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 6: Break America’s Regulatory Log-jam

Regulation plays a critical role in refereeing competition in a free market economy. But there’s a problem: Each year, Congress piles new rules upon old, creating a thick sludge of regulations – some obsolete, repetitive, and even contradictory – that weighs down citizens and businesses. In 2017, the Code of Federal Regulations swelled to a record 186,374 pages, up 19 percent from just a decade before. PPI proposes a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), modeled on the highly successful Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for closing obsolete military installations. Like the BRAC process, the proposed RIC would examine old rules and present Congress with a package of recommendations for an up-or-down vote to eliminate or modify outdated rules.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 7: Winning the Global Race on Electric Cars

Jumpstarting U.S. production and purchase of Electric Vehicles (EVs) would produce an unprecedented set of benefits, including cleaner air and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; a resurgence of the U.S. auto industry and American manufacturing; the creation of millions of new, good, middle class manufacturing jobs; lower consumer costs for owning and operating vehicles; and the elimination of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. U.S. automakers are already moving toward EVs, but the pace of this transition is lagging behind our foreign competitors. A dramatic expansion of tax credits for EV purchases could go a long way toward boosting the U.S. EV industry as part of a broader agenda to promote the evolution of the transportation industry away from carbon-intensive fuels.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 8: Enable More Workers to Become Owners through Employee Stock Ownership

More American workers would benefit directly from economic growth if they had an ownership in the companies where they work. To help achieve this goal, Congress should encourage more companies to adopt employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), which provide opportunities for workers to participate in a company’s profits and share in its growth. Firms with ESOPs enjoy higher productivity growth and stronger resilience during downturns, and employees enjoy a direct stake in that growth. ESOP firms also generate higher levels of retirement savings for workers, thereby addressing another crucial priority for American workers.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 9: Reserve corporate tax cuts for the companies that deserve it

Americans are fed up seeing corporate profits soaring even as their paychecks inch upward by comparison. Companies need stronger incentives to share their prosperity with workers – something the 2017 GOP tax package should have included.

Though President Donald Trump promised higher wages as one result of his corporate tax cuts, the biggest winners were executives and shareholders, not workers. Nevertheless, a growing number of firms are doing right by their workers, taking the high road as “triple-bottom line” concerns committed to worker welfare, environmental stewardship and responsible corporate governance. Many of these are so-called “benefit corporations,” legally chartered to pursue goals beyond maximizing profits and often “certified” as living up to their multiple missions. Congress should encourage more companies to follow this example. One way is to offer tax breaks only for high-road companies with a proven track record of good corporate citizenship, including better wages and benefits for their workers.

New Ideas for a Do-Something Congress No. 1: “A Check on Trump’s Reckless Tariffs”

Posted on January 16, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets out Congress’s job description on international trade, empowering it “to lay and collect . . . duties” and “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

For the past two years, Congress hasn’t been doing its job. Instead, it’s stood by while President Trump has hijacked its constitutional trade powers and recklessly imposed damaging tariffs. Trump’s abuse of trade powers delegated to him by Congress is destroying U.S. jobs, hammering large and small businesses, increasing prices for American families, and prompting foreign retaliation against American manufactured and farm exports.

It’s time for Congress to start doing its job on trade. A key step is enacting the Trade Authority Protection (TAP) Act. This balanced legislation would rein in Trump’s abuse of delegated trade powers, require greater presidential accountability, and enable Congress to nullify irresponsible tariffs and trade restrictions.

THE CHALLENGE: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF DELEGATED POWERS ON TARIFFS AND TRADE IS HARMING AMERICAN BUSINESSES, WORKERS, AND CONSUMERS.

President Trump’s reckless tariffs are damaging America’s economy and U.S. trade relations.
From Maine lobstermen(1) to West Coast dockworkers (2), and for countless workers, farmers, manufacturers (3), and consumers nationwide, President Trump’s tariffs—and resulting foreign retaliation—are causing serious and growing economic pain. Workers are losing jobs (4), manufacturing is being offshored (5), and farmers worry about rotting crops and lost export markets (6). America’s families are paying more for everything from washers and dryers to couches, clothing, canned beer, Christmas lights, and car insurance, while higher costs for infrastructure projects are straining local budgets (7). And unfocused tariffs against allies make it harder for America to mount joint action against serious trade threats, especially China’s technology theft and state subsidies (8).

In taking these irresponsible actions, the President is abusing trade powers delegated to him by Congress. Congress has done nothing to rein in Trump’s reckless trade wars and his hijacking of its constitutional trade authority.

Past presidents have prudently used trade powers delegated by Congress.
The Constitution provides Congress with primary authority over tariffs and foreign trade (9). For the first 145 years under the Constitution, Congress employed these powers directly through legislation. After the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs deepened the Great Depression, Congress wisely adopted a different approach (10).

Beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934,11 Congress increasingly delegated authority to the president to negotiate trade deals, adjust tariffs, and enforce U.S. trade rights (12). In effect, while retaining its constitutional trade powers and oversight authority, Congress has “subcontracted” key trade functions to the president.

These delegations make sense under America’s constitutional system. A 535-member Congress isn’t particularly well equipped to set tariffs, bargain on trade agreements, or enforce trade rules.

Presidents of both parties have largely exercised delegated trade powers responsibly, working constructively with Congress to expand trade (13). When President Kennedy signed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—which authorized the president to impose trade restrictions to address “national security” threats—he emphasized building alliances and reducing trade barriers, and warned against “stagnating behind tariff walls” (14).

President Trump has abused delegated tariff and trade powers.
Unlike his bipartisan predecessors,15 Donald Trump hasn’t been a prudent steward of delegated trade powers. Rather, he’s cynically abused delegated authority, believing, for example, that simply invoking “national security” enables him to take virtually any action to restrict trade (16).

In imposing tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, President Trump has used “national security” as little more than a pretext. Long-time trade experts note that the Administration’s investigations in these cases were “extremely non-transparent” and that its security and economic analyses were “embarrassingly feeble” and “absurd” (17).

Since adopting the metals tariffs, the Administration has implemented an exemption process that’s been chaotic, opaque, and lacking essential due process—especially for thousands of small businesses harmed by the tariffs. Applicants rarely get relief. The process seems designed, instead, to preserve tariffs for the Administration’s well-connected cronies in the primary metals sector (18).

Trump is doubling down on abusive “national security” cases, pushing for national security duties on auto imports from U.S. allies, despite near-universal opposition. The Administration’s public hearing in this investigation has been called a “show trial” intended to justify the President’s pre-ordained auto tariffs (19).

The Administration is abusing other delegated trade authorities. In a vital “Section 301” investigation of China’s theft of U.S. hi-tech, Trump initially sought to change China’s conduct by imposing unilateral tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports—based on faulty advice that China wouldn’t retaliate. When China retaliated, Trump impulsively increased the tariffed imports by another $200 billion and has threatened duties on all $500 billion in U.S. imports from China (20).

Trump’s irresponsible actions regarding China appear to be driven more by whim than any real strategy. It’s no surprise that his unfocused tariffs haven’t caused China to budge (21).

THE GOAL: REIGN IN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ABUSE OF DELEGATED POWERS WHILE PRESERVING A RESPONSIBLE BALANCE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ON TRADE

President Trump is seriously abusing trade powers “subcontracted” to him by Congress. Accordingly, like any responsible general contractor, Congress must step in and better oversee how the president uses delegated trade powers.

Most importantly, Congress needs an effective procedure for stopping reckless trade restrictions by the president—and reversing damaging tariffs on hundreds of billions in imports that Trump has already enacted. Any new mechanism should apply to the full range of trade restrictions—including tariffs, quotas, and import prohibitions—and to the full list of laws that authorize the president to restrict trade.

At the same time, Congress shouldn’t return to the role of setting tariffs, negotiating trade deals, or enforcing trade rules. And, the president must still have authority to take initiative to restrict trade for legitimate reasons, subject to effective congressional oversight.

THE SOLUTION: ENACT THE TRADE AUTHORITY PROTECTION ACT

The bipartisan Trade Authority Protection Act would establish a process to enable Congress to evaluate and, if necessary nullify, the president’s use of trade powers delegated by Congress. (The TAP Act was introduced in May 2018 by Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Ralph Norman (R-SC) and Charles Dent (R-PA)) (22).

Under the TAP Act, 60 days before any “congressionally delegated trade action” could go into effect, the president would be required to submit a report to Congress on the proposed action. The report would describe the proposed action and its economic impacts, including the impacts of potential foreign retaliation. The Act would also require the Government Accountability Office—the investigative arm of Congress—to report on whether the proposed action complies with applicable law.

The TAP Act defines “congressionally delegated trade actions” broadly, to include tariffs, quotas, and import prohibitions under a range of laws that empower the President to restrict trade (23).

The Act would establish a procedure—like the Congressional Review Act (24) process for reviewing major regulations—to enable Congress to nullify the President’s proposed trade action. To do so, Congress would use an expedited process to pass a resolution disapproving the President’s proposed action within the 60-day review period.

The TAP Act would also require, in the first year after any trade action takes effect, that the U.S. International Trade Commission conduct a comprehensive assessment for Congress of the economic effects of the action on U.S. producers and consumers.

Finally, since the TAP Act was introduced in May 2018, President Trump has used delegated powers to impose reckless and damaging tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of imports, often using highly questionable legal and economic justifications. To assure these past actions are fully evaluated and reviewed by Congress, it’s vital that the original TAP Act be amended to assure that its reporting and nullification requirements apply retroactively to past Administration actions.

ENDNOTES

1 Shawn Donnan, Even Lobsters Can’t Escape Trump’s Trade War, Bloomberg, Nov. 7, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-07/even-lobsters-can-t-escape-trump-s-trade-war?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=businessweek&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic.

2 Jeff Stein, ‘People are worried and people are scared.’ These workers are hurt by Trump’s trade war, but ineligible for his bailout, Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hurt-by-trumps-trade-war-ineligible-for-a-bailout/2018/10/24/7f30d866-ce67-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.5d8bc2ddefd.

3 Keith Naughton and Joe Deaux, Ford’s Hinrichs says Trump tariffs make U.S. steel costliest in the world, Automotive News, Oct. 22, 2018, https://www.autonews.com/article/20181022/OEM01/181029915/trump-tariffs-ford-hinrichs-stel; Rick Barrett, As tariffs continue, panic begins to sink in among Wisconsin manufacturers, Journal Sentinel, Oct. 22, 2018, https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/2018/10/22/tariffs-boats-cribs-bourbon-more-rattle-wisonsin-manufacturers/1686445002/.

4 Trump Trade War—Mid Continent Nail facing closure over tariffs, Steel News, Oct. 16, 2018, https://steelguru.com/steel/trump-trade-war-mid-continent-nail-facing-closure-over-tariffs/523502.

5 Bob Bryan, A Chicago-area manufacturer is laying off 153 workers and moving to Mexico partly because of Trump’s tariffs, Business Insider, Aug. 15, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tariffs-trade-war-causes-150-layoffs-at-chicago-manufacturer-2018-8.

6 Binyamin Appelbaum, Their Soybeans Piling Up, Farmers Hope Trade War Ends Before Beans Rot, New York Times, Nov. 5, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/soybeans-farmers-trade-war.html#click=https://t.co/iTW7QnQWbT.

7 Ed Gerwin, The ‘Trump Trade Tax’ Strikes Out America’s Baseball Fans, Progressive Policy Institute, Jul. 17, 2018, https://www.progressivepolicy.org/blog/the-trump-trade-tax-strikes-out-americas-baseball-fan//; Doug Palmer, Trump’s tariffs put pressure on insurance companies and premiums, Politico Morning Trade, Nov. 5, 2018, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/11/05/trumps-tariffs-put-pressure-on-insurance-companies-and-premiums-400272; Infrastructure Construction Projects Stalled on Trump Tariffs, Yahoo, Jul. 18, 2018, https://www.forconstructionpros.com/business/news/21014043/infrastructure-construction-projects-stalled-on-trump-tariffs.

8 Ed Gerwin, Confronting China’s Threat to Open Trade, Progressive Policy Institute, Jun. 20, 2018, https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publications/confronting-chinas-threat-to-open-trade/.

9 U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei.

10 Bill Krist, Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression? America’s Trade Policy, Washington International Trade Association, Jun. 16, 2014, https://americastradepolicy.com/did-the-smoot-hawley-tariff-cause-the-great-depression/#.W-xJ3y2ZOCQ.

11 U.S. House of Representatives, Historical Highlights: The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1943, https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/36918.

12 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Eighty Years After the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, Tradewinds, Jun. 2014, https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/June/Eighty-years-of-the-Reciprocal-Trade-Agreements-Act.

13 Rep. Ron Kind, Congress must defend role in international trade, The Hill, Jun. 7, 2018, https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/391230-congress-must-defend-role-in-international-trade.

14 John F. Kennedy, Remarks Upon Signing the Trade Expansion Act, Oct. 11, 1962,
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-upon-signing-the-trade-expansion-act.

15 Previous presidents, for example, responsibly limited their use of “national security” trade powers to matters that raise legitimate security concerns. David Wassel, Section 232: A splendid little trade war, The Hill, Mar. 17, 2018, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/378290-section-232-a-splendid-little-trade-war.

16 Paul Krugman, Trump’s Manchurian Trade Policy, New York Times, May 28, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/opinion/trump-china-trade-policy.html; It’s telling that President Trump often ignores the pretext of “national security,” and admits that the real purpose of his purported security tariffs is to provide leverage against trade partners on other trade priorities. Michael C. Bender, Rebecca Ballhaus, Peter Nicholas, and Alex Leary, Trump Steps Up Attacks on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-steps-up-attacks-on-fed-chairman-jerome-powell-1540338090?mod=hp_lead_pos.

17 Chad P. Bown, Trump has announced massive aluminum and steel tariffs, Here are 5 things you need to know. Washington Post, Mar. 3, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/01/trump-has-announced-massive-aluminum-and-steel-tariffs-here-are-5-things-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.c88a87214dda; Phil Levy, The Commerce Department Makes A Feeble National Security Plea For Steel Protection, Forbes, Feb. 16, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2018/02/16/the-commerce-departments-feeble-national-security-plea-for-steel-protection/#40bbede842dc.

18 Megan Keller, Commerce Department IG to audit Trump’s tariff exemptions, The Hill, Nov. 1, 2018, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/414193-commerce-department-inspector-general-audits-tariff-exemption-process; Ed Gerwin, Off-the-rails trade policy shows how America loses under Trump, The Hill, Sept. 18, 2018, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/407179-off-the-rails-trade-war-shows-how-america-loses-under-trump.

19 Ana Swanson, On Trump’s Car Tariffs, Companies are United in Dissent, New York Times, Jul. 19, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/trump-car-import-tariffs.html; Jennifer Jacobs and Jenny Leonard, U.S. Car-Import Probe Advances as Trump Plans Trade Meeting, Bloomberg, Nov. 12, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-12/u-s-car-import-probe-advances-as-trump-plans-trade-team-meeting.

20 Louis Nelson, Victoria Guida, and Adam Behsudi, Trump threatens tariffs on all $500 billion worth of Chinese imports, Politico, Jul. 20. 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/20/trump-china-tariffs-734938.

21 Anna Fifield, China’s trade surplus with the U.S. hit a record $34.1 billion in September amid trade war, Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chinas-trade-surplus-with-the-us-hit-a-record-341-billion-in-september-amid-trade-war/2018/10/12/acdb7412-cdd9-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.f9d7beaa6bda.

22 Trade Authority Protection Act, H.R. 5760, 115th Cong., 2nd Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5760/text; Congressman Ron Kind, Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Call for Implementation of Congressional Review Act Procedures on Trade Measures, Press Release, May 10, 2018, https://kind.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/bipartisan-group-lawmakers-call-implementation-congressional-review-act.

23 Ibid.

24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Congressional Review Act, https://www.gao.gov/legal/other-legal-work/congressional-review-act.

Bledsoe for Forbes, “As U.S. Emissions Spike Under Trump, Democrats Will Pursue Real Climate Policies-Not Just Green Talk”

Posted on January 14, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Leading researchers today released a report finding that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose by more than 3.4% in 2018, the first annual increase since 2006 and the largest rise in 20 years. This news comes both as President Trump continues to rollback greenhouse gas reduction policies for power plants, vehicles and other sectors—and as domestic climate change-related impacts, from hurricanes, floods, fires and sea-level rise, cost US consumers and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

The data clearly show that additional measures will be needed to cut long-term US greenhouse gas emissions, above and beyond overturning Trump’s rollbacks of auto fuel efficiency rules and regulations on power plants emissions. These additional policies must include some combination of a zero-carbon energy standard for the electricity sector, renewed incentives to electrify the US vehicle sector, funding for clean energy technology breakthroughs, and the reduction of super greenhouse pollutants like methane and HFCs. In time, they will also require a carbon tax.

House Democrats are entirely aware of this imperative. Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone has indicated that he will take up a series of measures aimed at cutting US emissions, likely to include most importantly a zero-carbon energy standard that will require greater amounts of clean energy in the economy. Such a standard should include all types of zero-carbon electricity production, including not only wind, solar and hydro-power, but also nuclear generation and coal and natural gas with carbon capture.

House Democrats should also consider a series of tax and other measures aimed at dramatically speeding up the transition to electric vehicles by providing more robust and reliable consumer and industry incentives.

In addition, Democrats must advance a clean energy infrastructure plan that provides the charging stations necessary to support tens of millions of clean electric vehicles that will be appearing on American roads, and many other features aimed at using advanced technology to cut emissions, and increase energy efficiency in every sector. And the House Appropriations Committee must at least double funding for clean energy technology breakthroughs like large scale electricity storage that could be game changers, allowing the U.S. to deeply cut its domestic emissions while creating new jobs and lucrative export markets for American industry.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Langhorne for The 74, “Inside One of America’s First Catholic-to-Charter School Conversions: ‘Intentionally Small,’ Built Around Character & Thriving”

Posted on January 9, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Three rows of second-graders stand facing the front of the classroom. A speaker emits sounds. First, a door creaking. Then, footsteps thudding and a wolf howling, all followed by the unmistakable opening riff of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller.”

The students put their hands on their knees and take four big steps forward before swinging their arms quickly from side to side. When they’ve finished performing this simplified version of Jackson’s choreography, many fall to the floor, giggling.

Jordan Daugherty teaches dance at Center City Public Charter School’s Petworth campus. Today, her second-grade class is learning the difference between improv and choreography.

“That’s great,” Daugherty says. “Now face me upstage. That was choreography. Remember, improv is when you feel the music and move with it. Choreography is when you make up the moves in advance to match the song.”

At Center City Petworth, all students take dance year-round as a part of their regular schedule. It’s an enrichment course, along with STEM and physical education, all components of the school’s commitment to providing every student with a comprehensive education.

“We believe that we need to develop good citizens and well-rounded people, as well as scholars,” says Principal Nazo Burgy. “To do that, our students need to be socially and emotionally healthy. Play is really important to early childhood, and this is a place where kids can be kids. We have schedules, procedures, and routines, but our hallways are not silent.”

Center City Petworth is part of Center Public Charter Schools, a network of six intentionally small schools operating in four of D.C.’s eight wards. Each school has between 200 and 270 students in grades pre-K through eight and only one class of about 25 students per grade.

The Center City network began when a group of private Catholic schools, experiencing financial problems, was on the verge of being shuttered. Many of these schools, like Petworth, had occupied an important place in the community for nearly a century.

Continue reading at The 74.

Bledsoe for the New York Times, “Going Nowhere Fast on Climate, Year After Year”

Posted on January 2, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Three decades after a top climate scientist warned Congress of the dangers of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising and so do global temperatures.

Thirty years ago, a NASA scientist, James Hansen, told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that “global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship with the greenhouse effect.” He added that there “is only 1 percent chance of accidental warming of this magnitude.”

By that, he meant that humans were responsible.

His testimony made headlines around the United States and the world. But in the time since, greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature average and cost of climate-related heat, wildfires, droughts, flooding and hurricanes have continued to rise.

This fall, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released an alarming report warning that if emissions continue to rise at their present rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, resulting in the flooding of coastlines, the killing of coral reefs worldwide, and more catastrophic droughts and wildfires.

To avoid this, greenhouse gas emissions would need to fall by nearly half from 2010 levels in the next 12 years and reach a net of zero by 2050. But in the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, President Trump continues to question the science of climate change, and his administration is rolling back emissions limits on power plants and fuel economy standards on cars and light trucks, while pushing to accelerate the use of fossil fuels. Other major nations around the world aren’t cutting emissions quickly enough, either.

So what has happened over the last 30 years? Progress has been made in fits and starts, but not nearly enough has been done to confront the planet-altering magnitude of what we have unleashed. Here’s a look at some of what has occurred:

Continue reading at the New York Times.

PPI Closes Out a Year Filled with Growth & Opportunity

Posted on December 31, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Dear Friends,

What a year 2018 has been for the Progressive Policy Institute, marking – I can hardly believe it – our 29th year as a catalyst for progressive innovation and reform in U.S. politics.

Thankfully, the year is also ending on a high note for our country. Last month’s midterm elections restored a modicum of balance and sanity to our politics, which have been knocked off kilter by the mendacious, chaotic and divisive presidency of Donald Trump. Maybe providence really does look out for the United States after all.

There’s no doubt that PPI has enjoyed a terrific year of growth. We doubled our in-house staff, bringing on creative policy analysts to add new projects on health care, domestic and fiscal policy to our existing portfolio of work on economic innovation, competition, social mobility, trade, public school reinvention and energy and climate policy. We’re also beefing up our roster of talented Senior Fellows, who have and will make important contributions on a wide array of issues including spurring business start-ups, employee ownership, immigration and higher education reform.

PPI also extended its already considerable international reach in 2018. We led several Congressional staff delegations to Europe and either hosted or participated in official meetings and public events in Brussels, Berlin, London and Dublin, as well as Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Chile, Argentina and Finland.

Our activities on the home front picked up as well. PPI hosted numerous Salon Dinners and policy roundtables in Washington, fiscal forums in Philadelphia and Des Moines, and a host of workshops on “reinventing America’s schools” across the country in cities such as Denver, Memphis and Baton Rouge.

I can’t help but wonder whether these two things – PPI’s growth and Democratic gains in the 2018 midterm – are related. Both seem to reflect the resilience and resurgence of something many pundits claim no longer exists — America’s “pragmatic center.” If so, it’s a heartening sign that our democracy’s antibodies are working to counteract populist extremism and demagoguery.

In any event, PPI is reaching out to the Class of 2018, especially the 40 newly elected Democratic Representatives, who have put the party firmly in charge of the House. Almost all of them ran as pragmatic problem-solvers rather than as rigid ideologues, and PPI is developing a series of actionable ideas to help the new class get things done in Washington.

And, in keeping with our “go local” philosophy, we continue to highlight the innovative work of progressive Governors and Mayors, who are solving the nation’s toughest problems from the ground up.

Finally, PPI will again be poised to do what we first did in 1992 – play a key role in defining the terms of debate in the 2020 presidential race. We recently released a national poll that shows how progressives can consolidate an anti-Trump majority by developing a “radically pragmatic” agenda for progressive reform.

None of this, of course, would be possible without the friendship and support of friends like you. Thanks for all you have done to help us succeed and grow. And let’s keep working together toward an even bigger progressive victory two years from now.

Regards,

Will Marshall
PPI President

A Strong First Year for PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future

Posted on December 27, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future wraps up its first year, we want to thank everyone who followed and supported our work. Below you’ll find a compilation of our contributions to the public discourse in 2018.

Through op-eds, blog posts, media interviews, research reports, engagement with elected officials, and public forums organized in key battleground states, the Center drew much-needed attention to America’s interconnected problems of deteriorating public investment and soaring federal budget deficits. We fought back against Republican efforts to make these problems worse and challenged Democrats to counter them by offering a new progressivism that invests in our country without leaving the bill for future generations.

We concluded the year with a public forum in Iowa to kick off the 2020 presidential debate over fiscal issues in the nation’s first caucus state – and this is only the beginning. Now that we’ve made the case for a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth, we’re ready to offer concrete proposals for making it a reality.

In 2019, PPI will publish a series of specific policy recommendations to renew public investments in the foundation of our economy, modernize federal health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society, and enact pro-growth tax reform that raises the revenue necessary to support both of these critical government functions. We’re excited for the year ahead and hope you’ll continue to follow our work in 2019 and beyond.

Read Our Major Reports

Ending America’s Public Investment Drought
Ben Ritz and Brendan McDermott (12/19)

Defunding America’s Future: The Squeeze on Public Investment in the United States
Ben Ritz (10/15)

Watch Our Public Forums

Ending America’s Public Investment Drought – Des Moines, IA (12/19)
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack
Former Iowa Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge
Iowa Rep. Chris Hall, Ranking Member on the House Appropriations Committee
Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future
Moderated by PPI President Will Marshall

Defunding America’s Future – Philadelphia, PA (11/19)
U.S. Rep. Madeline Dean (D-PA)
Dr. Robert Inman, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School
Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future
Moderated by David Thornburgh, CEO of Committee of Seventy

Check Out Our Op-Eds and Media Coverage

DC Think Tank Urging Iowans to Ask Presidential Candidates About Infrastructure
O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa (12/22)

A Fitting End for Disgraceful House Republicans
Ben Ritz, Forbes (12/22)

Social Security, Public Projects and Rural America with Tom Vilsack (Radio)
Michael Libbie, Insight on the Business Hour on News/Talk 1540 KXEL (12/20)

American Children are Getting a Raw Deal Under GOP Leadership
Brodi Fontenot, The Hill (12/20)

Top Democrats Host Policy Roundtable (TV)
ABC 5, Des Moines (12/19)

Trump Once Again Shows Contempt for Young Americans
Ben Ritz, Forbes (12/6)

Welcome to Post-Thrift America
Andrew Yarrow, RealClearPolicy (12/04)

Victorious Democrats Should Thank Young Voters by Funding America’s Future
Ben Ritz, Forbes (11/8)

Reality Check 10.17.18 (Radio)
Charles Ellison, WURD Radio Philadelphia (10/17)

Defend or Defund Our Future? (Radio)
Chase Hagaman, Facing the Future on NH News Radio WKXL (10/16)

Time to Get DC’s Finances Under Control
Paul Weinstein, RealClearPolicy (10/17)

The Deficit Is Heading to $1 Trillion. How Worried Should We Be?
Michael Rainey, The Fiscal Times (9/24)

Democrats Must Bridge the Generational Divide to Prevent Climate and Budget Crises
Paul Bledsoe and Ben Ritz, The Hill (7/18)

How Trump and Republicans are Damning Social Security and Medicare
Ben Ritz, NY Daily News (6/14)

Making Social Security’s Retirement Age Work for Workers
Andy Rotherham, The Hill (6/8)

Medicare is Running Out of Money. Democrats Want to Expand It
W. James Antle III, Washington Examiner (6/7)

The Deficit Debate
David Leonhardt, The New York Times (4/20)

The Parallel Universe of Trump’s Budget, Explained
Sam Petulla and Gregory Krieg, CNN (2/13)

Welcome to a New Era of Federal Spending
Sam Petulla, CNN (2/10)

12 of the Most Important Things in Congress’s Massive Spending Deal
Heather Long and Jeff Stein, The Washington Post (2/8)

Find More Analysis on the PPI Blog

Republicans Double Down on Deepening Deficits (9/13)

CBO Report Shows That We Really Can’t Afford All These Tax Cuts (8/9)

New Projections Make Clear We Can’t Afford the Trump Agenda (6/27)

Before Expanding Medicare, We Have to Pay for Current Beneficiaries (6/7)

Trustees Reports Highlight Challenges Facing Medicare and Social Security (6/6)

CBO Analysis Exposes Trump’s Faulty Fiscal Policy (5/30)

Are Democrats Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Part 2 (4/19)

A Tax Day Review of Trump’s “Tax Cuts” (4/17)

Are Democrats Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Yes, But… (4/16)

PPI Analysis of CBO’s 2018 Budget and Economic Outlook (4/10)

House GOP’s Balanced Budget Amendment is a Sham (4/10)

Even After Budget Deal, Discretionary Spending Remains Low (3/14)

New Analysis Highlights Dire Fiscal Situation (3/5)

Six Charts That Reveal the Absurdity of the Trump Budget (2/14)

See Our Press Releases

PPI Kicks Off 2020 Economic Debate with Iowa Fiscal Forum (12/19)

New Report: Washington is Crippling America’s Economic Future (10/15)

Social Security & Medicare Trustees Reports: A Reality Check for Expansion Advocates & Tax Cutters Alike (6/5)

New CBO Report Highlights the Cost of Trump’s First Year (4/9)

Statement on the Passing of Peter G. Peterson (3/20)

PPI Launches Center for Funding America’s Future (2/12)

Don’t Help GOP Budget Busters (2/8)

Ritz for Forbes, “A Fitting End For Disgraceful House Republicans”

Posted on December 22, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

This year concludes the same way it began: with a partial shutdown of the federal government. There is no doubt that President Donald Trump is primarily responsible for this shutdown – less than two weeks ago, during a nationally televised meeting in the Oval Office, he explicitly said so himself.

“If we don’t get what we want,” said Trump, “I will shut down the government. And I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, [Sen. Chuck Schumer]… I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it … I will take the mantle of shutting down.”

Not a whole lot of wiggle room there: this is clearly a Trump Shutdown. But the president was bolstered by support from his allies in the House Republican Conference and their retiring leader, House Speaker Paul Ryan. While the Senate did its job and unanimously passed a continuing resolution that would have kept the government open and prevented the shutdown, Ryan refused to allow a vote on similar legislation, allowing the electorally-disgraced House Republican majority to create one last pointless budget crisis on its way out the door.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Fontenot for The Hill, “American children are getting a raw deal under GOP leadership”

Posted on December 20, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

American children born today are getting a raw deal. As they come of age to drive or vote, they will be saddled with unimaginable levels of public debt because of the decisions their political leaders are making today.

I know this because the official keepers of the budget accounts for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — told us in vivid detail that public debts will swell, and a recent study shows this debt will overwhelm and constrain the future generations’ ability to make investment decisions available to current decision-makers and respond to unforeseen crises.

Recent policy choices unfortunately have constrained the ability of future generations to deal with unanticipated problems in their era. Reversing this problem will be difficult, but, as history has shown, it will come from a return to Democratic vision and leadership.

Continue reading at The Hill.

The Need For Equal Funding For Indiana Charter Schools

Posted on December 20, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Charter schools are tuition-free public schools operated by independent organizations. Freed from many rules and topdown policies constraining district-operated schools, charter school leaders have direct control over most school-level decisions.

Indiana has the best charter school law in the country, according to the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, because it allows full operational flexibility and provides true accountability for school performance.

Indiana’s brick-and-mortar K-12 charter schools serve a higher percentage of students of color and low-income students than the traditional public schools. Yet, on state standardized tests, these charter school students outperform their peers at traditional public schools. In both 2016 and 2017, the state rated a higher percentage of charters as “A” schools and a lower percentage as “D” or “F” schools than traditional public schools serving similar student populations.