Category: Uncategorized

Ainsley in The New York Times: After 100 Years, Britain’s Two-Party Political System May Be Crumbling

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Claire Ainsley, a former policy director for Mr. Starmer, said the results also reflected longer-term trends, including a breakdown of traditional class loyalties among voters, the increasing pull of nationalist politics and growing support for the centrist Liberal Democrats, the Greens and independent candidates.

“We have been seeing the fragmentation of society and that has flowed through to our politics,” said Ms. Ainsley, who now works in Britain for the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based research institute. “There is multiparty voting now.”

The upshot is that both main parties are struggling as they find themselves competing not just with each other, but also with opponents to their political left and right.

Read more in The New York Times.

Canter for Real Clear Education: Dear Democrats, Republicans Are Eating Your Lunch on Education. What Are You Going to Do About It?

Posted on by dcadmin

Early in my tenure at the education policy organization I founded, we barely had any money. No money meant no lobbyist, which left me, a complete stranger to the legislative process, to figure out how to pass meaningful policy.

A conversation I had with a Democratic legislator seen as an up-and-coming leader stands out among the blur of memories. He agreed to meet me at a local sandwich shop in downtown Jackson after I kept showing up at the Capitol, bright-eyed and brimming with optimism that Mississippi could, in fact, improve its public schools. I admit to feeling a little defeated that day after yet another uninspiring and unproductive education committee meeting, and I complained about it to him.

“Why don’t the Democrats seem to have any vision for education?” I asked in frustration. “Saying ‘no’ to everything the Republicans pose isn’t an agenda.”

“We’re the minority party,” he shot back. “It’s not our job to have a vision.”

I sat back in the chair, stunned, and thought to myself, “And that is exactly why you’ll always be the minority party.”

Read more in Real Clear Education.

GOP Defense Increase Gets Less for More

Posted on by dcadmin

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Congressional Republicans returned to Washington this week to begin drafting sections of the “big beautiful bill” that contains the bulk of their legislative agenda. One of the first sections to be considered was their plan to increase defense spending by $150 billion over the next ten years. At a time of growing threats from China and Russia, the need for military readiness is clear. Yet this surge in defense funding comes amid a simultaneous push from the Trump administration to dismantle our global commitments, raising the fundamental question: what is the purpose of building up military power if the United States no longer intends to lead with it?

Top Republicans are heralding the proposed defense increase as a “generational upgrade” in our military readiness. While some provisions — such as the billions allocated for the so-called “Golden Dome” — appear to be driven more by Trump’s own personal fascination than strategic necessity, most of the spending increases are serious priorities to improve military readiness and capability. Amongst other worthwhile provisions, their plan earmarks billions for shipbuilding, ramps up munitions production, and scales up innovative commercial technologies for military use. One would reasonably expect that this investment into America’s national security would be used to reinforce our global leadership and international commitments.

But since returning to office, President Trump has done just the opposite, pursuing a chaotic foreign policy of disengagement and signaling that the United States will no longer meet its obligations to its allies and partners around the world. Trump has renewed attacks on NATO, explored reducing U.S. troop levels in both Europe and Asia, and steadily undermined security commitments to allies in Ukraine and Taiwan. His destabilizing trade wars have alienated key economic partners, while his erratic threats to annex Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal have only deepened tensions with long-standing allies. Finally, he has gutted vital tools of American soft power, decimating foreign aid and development programs such as USAID, sharply cutting US diplomatic presence in critical regions, and slashing funds for basic scientific research and development. With this chaotic foreign policy, it’s no surprise that global confidence in the United States has plummeted in the past few months.

Military capability is not an end in itself, but rather a tool to execute a broader, coherent strategy. The United States built its post-World War II military and defense posture not to act unilaterally, but to support a system of alliances, deterrence, and collective security that amplifies American power. In the absence of the trust, stability, and strategic advantages that this system provides, hundreds of billions more in defense spending will be far less effective at ensuring national security and advancing American interests. Furthermore, by alienating our allies, Trump is undercutting the military power we can call upon in a crisis — perhaps by more than the spending increases would augment it.

As PPI has previously argued, any greater investment in the U.S. military should go hand-in-hand with revitalizing our alliances, restoring global economic leadership, and strengthening our diplomatic and international development institutions. For all the Trump administration’s talk of cutting wasteful spending, there is no better example of government waste than spending more money on activities from which we intend to benefit less.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

​During the first quarter of 2025, the economy shrank at a 0.3% annual rate — the largest decline in three years, driven by increased imports and the fear of Trump’s tariffs.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Kahlenberg for Kappan: Calling Bull**** on Contradictory College Diversification Claims

Posted on by Alex Terr

At a time when the Trump administration is attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in K-12 schools and colleges and universities as part of a larger high-profile campaign against what Trump calls “woke ideology,” the press is faced again with the challenge of how to accurately report on these programs.

In the past, members of the media have not always risen to the challenge, downplaying education institutions’ economic incentives for racial preferences.

Polls show that most Americans support racial diversity in educational institutions, but most don’t like using racial preferences as the means of achieving that goal.

Read more in Kappan. 

Guenther for Real Clear Science: The Devastating Risks of Trump’s NOAA Cuts

Posted on by Alex Terr

President Trump’s first budget request is slated to come out later this spring, but agencies are receiving drafts from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) now — and the draft budget request for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) paints a dire picture as the agency is slated for a 25 percent cut.

Some of these cuts were foreshadowed by Project 2025, which paints NOAA as a primary component “of the climate change alarm industry.” Project 2025 is clear in its intent to halt independent government research on climate change and privatize the weather forecast data that Americans rely on to keep themselves safe.

However, it’s unclear why the administration is looking to change course from the policy on space safety created pursuant to a Space Policy Directive from the White House during Trump’s first term that the growing space industry relies on.

Read more in Real Clear Science.

Canter for the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly Podcast: Mississippi’s Secret? Twenty Years of Persistence and Progress

Posted on by Max Sherrill

On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Rachel Canter, the founding executive director of Mississippi First and the new director of education policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, joins Mike and David to discuss what really fueled Mississippi’s dramatic gains in student achievement. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber reports on a new study examining the impact of Ohio’s EdChoice voucher program on college enrollment and graduation rates.

Listen to the full episode.

Alarm clocks, baby strollers, battery-powered sex toys, and thermos bottles may vanish from American stores by the end of May

Posted on by Alex Terr

FACT: Alarm clocks, baby strollers, battery-powered sex toys, and thermos bottles may vanish from American stores by the end of May.

THE NUMBERS:  Year-on-year drop in container arrivals at Port of Los Angeles – 

 

May 2024 / May 2025* -33.0%
February 2008 / February 2009 -32.6%
March 2019 / March 2020 -30.9%

* Comparing scheduled container cargo arrivals for April 27 to May 17, 2025, with actual cargo arrivals in May 2024.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Here’s the Treasury Secretary Mr. Bessent in March, advocating higher tariffs and lecturing his audience: “Cheap goods are not the essence of the American dream.”

Since then the Trump administration has released a turbid stream of extra-Constitutional “emergency” and “national security” decrees raising tariff rates, mixed with amendments to these decrees to raise rates higher, exempt some goods, or change policy for particular countries. They are complex and frequently change (as with yesterday’s complicated rewrite of the March auto decree). But taken together, and as of this week, they basically leave a tariff rate of 10% for almost all goods (with exceptions for many Canadian and Mexican products and energy), plus the 1.4% average for the permanent, Congressionally authorized tariff system, and 145% on most Chinese-made goods (with exceptions for smartphones and some other IT goods). One result of all these sudden new costs: per press reports, a group of retail CEOs informed the administration a week ago that Americans may start seeing “empty shelves” as early as mid-May. In more specific terms, as the prices of many foods, most clothing and shoes, back-to-school goods, and much else rise, a swathe of cheap and popular mid-range home goods — blenders and alarm clocks, umbrellas and strollers, sex toys and toasters — might vanish altogether.

Here’s why:

A 10% tariff means higher prices, but (as we noted in the case of toasters last summer) probably won’t much change production or trade patterns. The 145% tariff on Chinese goods, by contrast, will often act more like an embargo. A striking New York Times visualization last Sunday (subs. req.), built around the image of a house, suggests the likely impact by reporting the Chinese share of American imports for dozens of home goods: 10% or lower for rugs, mattresses, TVs, and cars; 20%-50% for metal shelves, refrigerators, washers and driers; 90% and above for thermos bottles, microwave ovens, and umbrellas; a 99% peak for alarm clocks and, well, toasters.

Official data on the real-world impacts of all these decrees — trade flows, prices, employment, growth — will flow in slowly over May and June. Some early clues, though, come from the “Port Optimizer” system run by the Port of Los Angeles, which offers near-future forecasts of container-ship arrivals. It predicts 17 ships carrying 83,351 containers* this week, 14 ships carrying 71,520 containers next week, and (a bit more optimistically) 18 carrying 89,917 containers the week after that. Compared to May of 2024, this suggests container arrivals have dropped by 30% to 35%. This would rival or possibly exceed the 32.6% year-on-year fall in February 2009 (after the 2008 financial crisis) and the 30.9% drop in March 2020 as the U.S. economy closed during the COVID-19 pandemic as the steepest decline of the 21st century.

The Port’s cargo figures also hint at where this drop is fastest. It handled $112 billion worth of incoming imports from China last year — a third of its $333 billion in total cargo traffic, and about a quarter of the $439 billion in all U.S. goods imports from China. With the 10% global tariff likely to raise prices and reduce but not end trade, and the 145% tariffs on most Chinese goods after the April 2 decree making many goods prohibitively expensive, the Port Optimizer’s vessel-arrival forecasts — which mirror press reports on plummeting April ship departures from China — likely show a steep plunge in arrivals of Chinese-made home goods.

What would this mean in practice? Overall, China’s share of U.S. goods imports last year was a large but not overwhelming 13%. (In dollars, $439 billion of $3.295 trillion.) As the Times visualization shows, though, China’s share imports is highest in consumer goods, and for some small home appliances exceeds 90%. A quick twelve-product table, with some products used in the Times piece (though using “quantity” rather than “value” shares) and others from our own files:

Product Value Quantity (total) Quantity (China) Chinese Share Alternative sources
Alarm clocks  $50 million 11.49 million 11.43 million 99% Taiwan
Battery-powered sex toys $450 million 45.0 million 43.6 million 97% Korea, Germany
Baby strollers $392 million 5.68 million 5.45 million 96% Vietnam
Microwave ovens $1.40 billion 19.7 million 18.5 million 95% Malaysia, Thailand
Hair dryers $406 million 23.8 million 20.9 million 88% Cambodia
Clarinets   $35 million 96,200 66,200 67% Indonesia
Blenders & juicers $744 million 45.0 million 38.4 million 85% Mexico
Toothbrushes $289 million 1.24 billion 755 million 61% Germany, Vietnam
Hammers $111 million 21.15 million 10.30 million 49% Mexico
Ball-point pens $481 million 2.75 billion 1.28 billion 47% Japan, Mexico
Vacuum cleaners $2.98 billion 63.6 million 22.2 million 35% Vietnam
Razors $482 million 1.47 billion 210 million 14% Mexico, Greece

 

These are just the sort of “cheap goods” Mr. Bessent dismissed in March: kitchen gadgets, low-priced clocks, baby goods, personal care products and simple tools, musical instruments, and so forth. The razors, vacuum cleaners, hammers, and pens at the bottom of the table will likely cost more in the coming weeks and months but stay on the shelves. The clocks, sex toys, strollers, and microwaves near the top, though, might not be available at any price.

So: Nationwide, Americans will be deciding over the next months whether Bessent is right. More personally and locally, if you’re looking to restock your kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, workbench, home office, etc. with small but useful things this year, do it now.

* Technically 83,351 “TEU”.  The TEU, standing for “twenty-foot equivalent unit” is the standard measurement of container traffic. One TEU is one 20’ x 21’ x 8.5’ container, and a 40-foot container counts as two TEU.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

Data:

The New York Times illustrates the Chinese place in American home goods.

The Port of Los Angeles’ container statistics, with monthly totals in TEUs since 1995 and annual totals since 1989.

… the Port Optimizer tracks week-by-week vessel and cargo arrivals.

… the Port’s “Facts and Figures” page.

And the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Dataweb.

From the administration: 

Bessent dismisses affordable goods in March.

… and last week, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett says no chance of empty shelves, everything is under control.

Public reaction so far:

Public opinion probably won’t set hard until Americans get a few months’ experience of the tariffs’ real-world effects. The interim judgment, though, is bleak.  Just as the Port Optimizer gives before-the-facts hints at actual cargo arrivals, data from seven major poll releases this past week — Pew, Fox News, Washington Post/ABC News, New York Times/Siena, CNN/SSRS, NPR/Marist, and Harvard’s Institute of Politics (of Americans under 30) — provides a snapshot of attitudes after the April 2 decree but before the real-life impact. We’ll look in more detail in a later Trade Fact, but the average across all six media polls has 60% of Americans “disapproving” of tariff increases while 36% “approve.” Among the individual polls, “disapproval” rates range from 55% to 65%, and “approval” from 33% to 40%.

And for HTS enthusiasts:

For Dataweb users, Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes for the 12 products in the table are:

82052000 for hammers;
821210 and 821220 for razors;
850811, 850819, and 850860 for vacuum cleaners;
8509400015 and 8509400030 for blenders and juicers;
851650 for microwave ovens;
851631 for hair dryers,
87150000 for strollers;
9019102020 and 9010102030 for battery-powered sex toys. We haven’t included non-battery options, not because of prudishness but because HTS does not give them their own lines, instead discreetly concealing them in general “other goods” lines in Chapters 39 and 40.
91051100 and 91051900 for alarm clocks;
9205904020 for clarinets;
96032100 for toothbrushes;
96082000 for ball-point pens.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

New PPI Report Slams Trump’s First 100 Days of Foreign Policy as Most Disastrous in Modern History

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — In his first 100 days back in office, President Trump has severely undermined the United States’ global standing — alienating key allies, destabilizing the international trade and financial systems, and emboldening America’s adversaries to act without consequence.

As the world fears what Trump may do next, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released “Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad First Hundred Days on Foreign Policy,” a report by Peter Juul, PPI’s Director of National Security Policy. The report outlines the policies that Trump and his team implemented since his inauguration.

“This administration has managed in just 100 days to do what no foreign adversary could: undermine U.S. global leadership, fracture critical alliances, and inject chaos into the core of our national defense,” said Juul.

Juul outlines how the White House has destroyed its reputation in three key ways:

  • An Unprovoked, Irrational, and Destructive Global Trade War: Trump’s global tariffs sparked market turmoil and increased prices for Americans while seeding grave doubts about America’s reliability as a partner.
  • Alienating Allies and Losing Friends: From repeatedly calling Canada “the 51st State” to the proposed annexation of the Danish territory Greenland, the U.S. is pushing even its closest allies away.
  • Ineptitude, Chaos, and Politicization: The Signal chat scandal — coupled with the politically motivated purging of staff — highlights the dysfunction within Trump’s Department of Defense.

Juul warns that if current trends continue, the consequences could be long-lasting, if not irreversible. America’s reliability as an ally, its military effectiveness, and its global standing are all at risk.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, 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. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on X.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Donald Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad First Hundred Days On Foreign Policy

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

INTRODUCTION

A president’s first hundred days in office is an arbitrary but nonetheless useful benchmark. It provides a chance to evaluate and make preliminary judgments about a president’s early performance and policy priorities.

In his first hundred days back in office, President Donald Trump has given a masterclass on how to destroy a nation’s reputation and damage its interests around the world. It’s the most disastrous first hundred days for a president since the term passed into popular usage more than nine decades ago — particularly when it comes to national security. Indeed, Trump is personally responsible for three major national security debacles that have defined his first hundred days: launching an unprovoked and irrational trade war with the rest of the world, actively alienating America’s closest and oldest allies while cozying up to dictators and long-time adversaries, and displaying a shocking level of ineptitude in the conduct of foreign affairs as well as a politicization of national defense.

Trump’s foreign policy has already damaged American national security in deep and profound ways. In just over three months, Trump and his preferred policies have made America less secure, less prosperous, and less trusted in the world.

It’s worth taking a closer work to see just how.

Read the full report. 

New Directions for Democrats: Denver

Posted on by Max Sherrill

On Friday, April 25, PPI launched New Directions for Democrats with a high-energy convening in Denver, bringing together policymakers, strategists, and reformers to chart a new course for the Democratic Party. Against a backdrop of growing anxiety about our nation’s future, we came together with a shared understanding: it is not enough to oppose authoritarian threats — we must also offer a clear, compelling vision of what and who we are fighting for.

Over two days of candid conversations, participants focused on rebuilding trust with working Americans, forging a cross-class coalition that includes more non-college voters, modernizing the party’s agenda to deliver real results, and restoring faith in our government’s ability to serve the public effectively. We drew inspiration from “The Colorado Way” — a disciplined, ground-up strategy that has transformed Colorado from a red to a blue state — and from international examples of political renewal.

New Directions is about laying the foundation for a durable, competitive center-left majority — one that meets Americans where they are, addresses their real-world challenges, and makes government work for working families again.

Check out the full highlights from the event.

PPI Statement on Passing of Paul Hofheinz

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) joins friends and colleagues around the world in mourning the passing of Paul Hofheinz, co-founder and president of the Lisbon Council.

“The PPI community mourns the loss of our good friend and frequent partner in Brussels, Paul Hofheinz,” said Will Marshall, President of PPI. “Paul was an American whose passion for European unity and prosperity, as well as stronger transatlantic bonds, led him to found the Lisbon Council, a leading Brussels think tank. He was a rigorous and creative thinker with an open and generous spirit, and his voice will be missed.”

“Paul was a wonderful collaborator, generously sharing ideas and insights from Brussels to Washington with PPI over the past 15 years,” said Lindsay Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of PPI. “He was a brilliant thought leader and a spirited debater, always pushing for better policy on both sides of the Atlantic. His leadership, intellect, and friendship will be deeply missed.”

Paul Hofheinz was a visionary leader whose passion for European unity, economic progress, and strong transatlantic ties defined his career. Over the past 15 years, Paul became a valued partner and friend to PPI, helping to forge lasting connections between policymakers in Brussels and Washington and enriching our work with his ideas, insights, and collaborative spirit.

Founded in 1989, 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. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI. 

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Kahlenberg for The Wall Street Journal: The Merits of ‘Economic Affirmative Action’

Posted on by Max Sherrill

While most Americans applaud the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down racial preferences in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, they also support affirmative action for economically disadvantaged students of all races. Jason Riley’s column “‘Economic Affirmative Action’ Won’t Work” (Upward Mobility, April 23), however, raises a legitimate question: Would affirmative action for working-class students—an approach I encourage in my new book “Class Matters”—lead to academic “mismatch” for underprepared students and violate principles of merit?

In its defense of racial preferences in the litigation, Harvard also claimed that economic affirmative action was an unworkable alternative because it would reduce standards. But simulations that Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono and I conducted as expert witnesses for Students for Fair Admissions showed that the mean SAT of students admitted through economic affirmative action at Harvard would be at the 98th percentile. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion, class-based affirmative action “would barely affect the academic credentials of each incoming class.”

Moreover, most fair-minded people recognize that in assessing a student’s potential, it would be absurd to ignore whether a 1400 SAT score was achieved by a pupil who attended poorly funded schools and worked two jobs after school to help his family make ends meet or by one who had been given everything in life. Considering academic achievement in light of hurdles surmounted is the best measure of true merit.

Read his letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal.

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: Mapping Pathways to Economic Opportunity: A Guide for Donors

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Recent economic volatility has prompted speculation on Americans’ financial futures and job prospects. But whether we are entering a recession or a new era of “onshoring” jobs, one fact remains: individuals need practical pathways to good jobs and upward mobility. What kind of job opportunities do young people and workers say they want? And what kind of employment opportunities exist?

Any donor investing in the long-term economic well-being of Americans must answer these two questions. In this article, I explain the current situation among the young and employable and describe five ways of thinking about career pathway navigation.

Keep reading in Philanthropy Daily.

Marshall for The Hill: Flailing Democrats Need to Build Coalitions, Not Primary Their Own Members

Posted on by Max Sherrill

These are anxious times for our country. We are assailed hourly by a belligerent president who treats America’s laws, courts and civil liberties with utter contempt and imagines he can rule a free people by royal decree.

Are Democrats fighting hard enough against President Trump’s malicious policies and rampant abuses of power? Progressive activists say no, and they’re even threatening to unseat Democrats they claim are afraid to mix it up.

This is asinine — a return to the politics of subtraction that has locked the party out of power, effectively disarming it in the struggle with a rogue president.

The party’s left turn in reaction to Trump’s rise since 2016 has been a fiasco. It’s identified Democrats with soaring prices and living costs, sclerotic federal bureaucracies that can’t get things done, unrestricted illegal immigration, permissive attitudes toward crime and an illiberal politics of race and gender essentialism.

That has left the Democratic brand badly tarnished. Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the party.

Keep reading in The Hill.