Looking back, Estonian officials are confident that they handled the May 2024 buoy incident about as well as it could be handled. Estonian border guards caught the Russian theft on video: a handful of uniformed men in patrol boats moving slowly up the river between the two countries, systematically removing 25 of the 50 buoys laid down by Estonia to mark the frontier. “Moscow is testing our reaction,” director general of the Estonian police and border guard Egert Belitšev tells me as we watch the tape. “When we don’t react, they go further.”
A tiny country of 1.4 million, formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, Estonia has long seen itself as the front line between Russia and the West, and Estonians are used to the so-called “hybrid” aggression that has been escalating elsewhere in Europe in recent months. The day after the buoy incident, the foreign minister summoned Moscow’s top diplomat in Tallinn and told him in no uncertain terms that the theft was unacceptable. Will that be enough to deter similar sabotage this year? Belitšev shrugs off the question. “We couldn’t follow the provocation,” he explains. “We do not enter Russian territory. Our job is to keep Estonians safe, not provoke World War III.”
It has taken the rest of Europe several years to recognize the growing challenge posed by Moscow’s shadow warfare. But with the provocations increasingly frequent and increasingly menacing—not just cyberattacks and disinformation but bomb threats, arson, and a foiled assassination attempt last year—officials across the continent are wrestling with how to react.
Western countries’ commitment to the rule of law generally prohibits responding in kind—what separates us from the Russians, after all, if not our commitment to a rules-based international order? But it’s not clear that the tools we have at hand are enough to deter Moscow from further aggression. In Western Europe, as in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin believes might makes right, and the civilized world has been largely unable to come up with a counterargument.
Today marks the fourth anniversary of a shameful first in the 236-year old saga of American democracy — the Jan. 6, 2021 plot to overturn a U.S. presidential election and block the peaceful transition of power.
As then-Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell told Congress and the nation, the author of this attempted coup was then-President Donald Trump, whom Biden had handily defeated in the 2020 election.
Instead of accepting the voters’ verdict, Trump launched a campaign of lies and intimidation intended to nullify the election result and prevent Biden, the rightful winner, from taking his seat. When that failed, he summoned a mob of supporters to Washington and instigated a violent and destructive attack on the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s victory.
That insurrection likewise failed. But it claimed the lives of rioters and police officers alike, forced Congressional leaders to hide and flee and led to criminal prosecutions for more than 1500 Trump backers.
Trump’s obvious complicity in these criminal and treasonous acts should have disqualified him from ever serving in public office again. But Senate Republicans – led by McConnell – failed to rise to the defense of Constitutional government and impeach a president gone rogue.
Even worse, honest Republican election officials who withstood Trump’s attempts to corrupt them and political leaders who condemned his subversion of our electoral system have been hounded out of public life.
When U.S. voters last November elected Trump president, they set a baleful precedent in normalizing deviant political behavior. Our country has crossed a moral and legal Rubicon, and it’s essential that all patriotic Americans regardless of party resolve to repair the damage done to peoples’ confidence – at home and around the world – in the integrity of America’s democratic institutions and rules.
Here the people are sovereign, and Democrats and independents must accept their decisions even if we find them hard to understand or respect. That’s why Trump is now receiving from President Biden that which he refused to give him – a orderly and peaceful transfer of power.
But as citizens, we should never forget or forgive what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. Instead, let’s stay vigilant and resolute in repelling further attacks on what remains the world’s foremost experiment in democratic self-government.
Today, PPI issued the following statement in response to President Biden’s decision on Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel:
“President Biden’s decision this morning to block Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel is a bad mistake on the merits, and the White House’s explanation of the reasons is so opaque and so lacking in substance as to suggest that it knows this. Here is the core of the release (with ellipses stripping out some legal language):
‘(a) There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that … Nippon Steel Corporation … through the proposed acquisition of United States Steel Corporation … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; and
‘(b) Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act … do not, in my judgment, provide adequate and appropriate authority for me to protect the national security in this matter.’
“Nothing in the release hints in any way as to what ‘action’ Nippon Steel might take and how it might differ from the actions of the company’s steelmaking facilities in Alabama for over a decade. Neither does it suggest what the ‘credible evidence’ the statement mentions might involve. Still, less does the release offer any way to resolve the questions raised if this mutually agreed-upon transaction doesn’t go ahead:
Will U.S. Steel now follow through on its statement earlier this year that blocking the transaction would lead to the closure of western Pennsylvania steel mills? If so, how would the administration explain its decision to the affected communities and workers?
How does the administration view the possibility of a blast-furnace steel monopoly emerging as a result of an alternative purchase, and its impact on downstream industries such as auto production?
Does the administration, in general, feel that foreign investors from allied countries such as Japan, Korea, the European Union, Canada, and the U.K., who employ a quarter of all U.S. manufacturing workers, are unreliable?
“Looking forward, it is very likely to have set a bad precedent for future CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) decisions on sensitive transactions, which up to now have been civil-service driven and based on objective criteria. As such, it does a disservice to U.S. businesses, to foreign firms interested in manufacturing and employing skilled workers in the United States, and to consumers and unions sharing an interest in transparent decision-making with a clear statutory basis. It also creates deep uncertainty about the future of U.S. Steel, and in particular, its Pennsylvania operations.
“Little about the rationale for this very controversial decision, with its attendant damage to an important alliance and its potential harm to American heavy industry, is clear. The Biden administration owes the country a better explanation, and we hope it will provide one in its remaining days.”
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. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to block the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) attempt to revive net neutrality regulations is a significant affirmation of judicial restraint and regulatory clarity. This decision not only preserves the light-touch framework that has driven unprecedented internet growth since 2017 but also sends a clear message: federal agencies must respect the boundaries of their statutory authority, leaving sweeping policy changes to Congress where they belong.
Since the FCC’s 2017 repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules, the internet has defied expectations of its demise. Investment in broadband infrastructure has surged, speeds have risen, and access has expanded, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Critics of deregulation once forecast a dystopia of throttled connections and blocked content. Yet the reality has been altogether more mundane: a market-driven system where broadband providers, spurred by consumer demand and competition, have kept the internet open and reliable. Far from descending into chaos, the internet has flourished under a framework that prioritizes innovation over heavy-handed oversight.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling resonates beyond the FCC, reflecting a broader recalibration of regulatory authority in Washington. In rolling back Chevron deference — a doctrine that long gave agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes — the Supreme Court signaled a new era of constraint. The Sixth Circuit’s insistence that the FCC stay within its statutory bounds is a pointed reminder that sweeping policy shifts belong to Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. By curbing the impulse to govern by fiat, the court has reinforced the foundational principle that regulation must rest on clear legislative intent.
Outgoing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s acknowledgment that the commission’s efforts had reached a dead end is a candid admission of the regulatory reality. While she called for Congress to enshrine net neutrality principles, this plea also highlights the inherent challenges of imposing sweeping rules through agency actions alone. Legislative clarity would resolve many uncertainties and contentious legal battles that have plagued this issue for over a decade.
Proponents of net neutrality argue that the principles of a “fast, open, and fair” internet are non-negotiable. However, those ideals can coexist with the flexible, innovation-friendly regulatory environment established in 2017. The internet’s evolution has consistently been driven by market forces, not prescriptive government mandates. Internet service providers have every incentive to maintain user satisfaction, as consumer trust and market competition remain key drivers of success in the digital age.
Moreover, the narrative that stricter regulations are necessary to protect consumers or enhance cybersecurity fails to hold up under scrutiny. Since the repeal of net neutrality rules, there has been no documented systemic abuse of power by broadband providers. The argument for reintroducing heavy-handed regulations often appears to be a solution in search of a problem.
Looking ahead, Congress has an opportunity to step in and provide a durable resolution to the net neutrality debate. Bipartisan legislation that balances the need for an open internet with the benefits of a market-driven approach could end the regulatory ping-pong that has defined this issue. Such a framework should prioritize transparency, competition, and consumer protections while avoiding the pitfalls of overregulation that stifle innovation.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling is a win for consumers, businesses, and the broader internet ecosystem. By upholding the light-touch regulatory framework that has driven unprecedented growth and connectivity, the court has ensured that the Internet remains a dynamic and open platform. As the FCC enters a new chapter, its priority should shift from ideological skirmishes to pragmatic policies — building better infrastructure, narrowing the digital divide, and ensuring that America retains its leadership in the global digital economy. The internet’s strength has always been its adaptability. Today’s challenge is to nurture that resilience, not smother it in outdated regulation.
Americans voted for radical change in November, and judging by the chaos he’s already generated before taking office, Donald Trump might give them more than they bargained for. Can Democrats offer a saner alternative?
So far, the signs aren’t encouraging. Instead of taking a hard look at how they managed to lose to the most ethically tainted and unpopular presidential candidate in memory, many in the party seek refuge in self-exonerating excuses.
President Biden was too old. Kamala Harris didn’t have time to wage a real campaign. Republicans and Elon Musk dominated social media and flooded the campaign debate with lies and bigoted attacks on immigrants and transexual people. The high cost of living warped voters’ perception of the nation’s economic health.
The cost of a college education continues to rise beyond the means of most Americans. Despite growing sources of federal financial assistance, more Americans carry excessive levels of student debt than ever before per statistics from Motley Fool.
Americans can reduce the cost of tuition in various ways, but among the most popular is earning course credit for work done before finishing high school. In some cases, high schools can engage in dual enrollment—namely by taking certain courses at a community college. In others they can take a college-level class in high school, and ear college credibly by earning a score of 3 or more on Advanced Placement subject tests or completing the International Baccalaureate curriculum.
Of course, those programs come at a cost to the colleges where those students matriculate—registrars can’t charge students for classes they’ve already taken. And over time, colleges and universities have erected new hurdles to receiving dual enrollment, AP, and IB credit.
Shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his Democratic counterparts announced a bipartisan deal to prevent a government shutdown at midnight on Saturday, the MAGA movement tore it apart and sent the federal government hurtling towards a holiday shutdown.
Although many far-right Republicans grumbled from the get-go, Johnson’s problem really began when billionaire Elon Musk launched into a thread on the social media app formerly known as Twitter excoriating the details of the bill. Although there were many provisions of questionable merit attached to the continuing resolution that would keep the government operating until next March, Musk’s thread was full of misinformation and falsehoods — a problem that has always plagued the platform and become even worse since he took ownership of it in 2022.
President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance then issued a joint statement announcing their opposition to the legislation, effectively killing any chance it had of passing the Republican-controlled House with less than 48 hours to prevent a government shutdown. It’s worth remembering that the last time Republicans had unified control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, the federal government shut down three times in just one year — more than any other year in the preceding four decades. If Donald Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk are so quick to undermine legislation negotiated by their own party’s House speaker, who has a far narrower majority to work with than his predecessor did in 2018, the country is likely to be in for uniquely high levels of government dysfunction over the next two years.
There is nothing wrong with politicians paying attention to worker safety. Monitoring worker safety is an important role of government, both historically and today.
But Senator Bernie Sanders’ latest report attacking Amazon’s safety record sheds more heat than light on the subject. The report is based on the premise that the company operates “uniquely dangerous warehouses.”
However, a careful look at government data tells a different story. In particular, we look at the rate of job-related injuries and illnesses that result in at least one day away from work (“lost time incident rate” or LTIR). These are the more serious safety incidents, measured relative to 100 full-time equivalent workers.
In both 2022 and 2023, the average LTIR at Amazon’s U.S. warehouse facilities was only 1.1, significantly below the general warehousing industry as a whole, including all sizes of establishments (see figure below).
Perhaps more important, Amazon’s U.S. warehouse facility LTIR was less than the average LTIR for the vast array of general merchandise stores across the country, including department stores and supercenters, and their associated e-commerce fulfillment facilities. The general merchandise store industry employs more than 3 million workers, suggesting that Amazon’s safety record stacks up well in a broader context.
The Sanders report was released as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is leading protests against a small number of Amazon facilities nationally. Once again, it’s not unreasonable for workers to press for better working conditions and higher wages. But it must be noted that Amazon and other e-commerce companies would be better characterized as pay leaders rather than pay laggards. According to BLS data, real pay growth over the past five years for production and nonsupervisory workers in e-commerce industries, such as general warehousing (6.2%) and couriers and messengers (5.1%), significantly outperformed the national average for all private sector industries (4.0%). In particular, real pay growth in ecommerce industries has outstripped major industries such as manufacturing, construction, and general merchandise retailers, where real pay has actually fallen since 2019 (see table below).
After the November election, progressives must focus their attention on issues that are important to working-class Americans. Job safety and wage growth are clearly relevant. But combining these key topics with distorted attacks on large tech companies is not the way to win the hearts and minds of voters.
Table 1. 5-Year Real Pay Growth, Selected Industries
Real hourly pay, production and nonsupervisory workers, percentage change, October 2019-October 2024
Voters clearly sense that the inmates are running the asylum. In an interesting finding from a Progressive Policy Institute postelection survey of working-class (noncollege) voters, just 34 percent of respondents said they trusted Harris to stand up to the extreme members of her party. By contrast, a majority said they thought Trump could do so.
But the issue goes deeper than fear. Far too many Democrats simply believe they are on the “right side of history” when it comes to policies around immigration, crime, race, and trans issues.
Who would you trust? A global health organization that bans safer alternatives while leaving cigarettes on the shelves, or the President-elect of the United States who vows to “save vaping again”?
President-elect Donald Trump recently declared on his social media platform:
“I saved flavored vaping in 2019, and it greatly helped people get off smoking. I raised the age to 21, keeping it away from the ‘kids.'”
In stark contrast, Dr. Angela Pratt, of the World Health Organization, praised a move by Vietnamese lawmakers to try and ban alternative nicotine products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco devices, calling it a victory for health and young people. Yet, she conveniently ignored the fact that traditional cigarettes — the primary source of harm — remain legally available.
Meanwhile, reduced-risk nicotine alternatives that could help smokers quit are now banned outright. Public health professionals want the public to trust them without being trustworthy — that’s a recipe for failure.
The message to working people is clear: your health is expendable. Banning reduced-risk alternatives removes a vital lifeline for millions of smokers, many of whom are from lower-income backgrounds and cannot afford premium smoking cessation therapies. These policies effectively funnel them back to traditional cigarettes.
This isn’t just a Vietnam problem. NGOs worldwide led by Bloomberg Philanthropies have been instrumental in pushing for similar bans on reduced-harm nicotine products in developing countries. While cloaked in the rhetoric of public health, their campaigns frequently target vaping and heated tobacco products, which countless experts agree are significantly less harmful than traditional cigarettes. This anti-nicotine crusade disregards the harm-reduction potential of these technologies, leaving working-class smokers with fewer options and no voice.
Consider this: In countries like India, Mexico, and the Philippines, these NGO-affiliated organizations have been criticized for lobbying governments and pressuring lawmakers to adopt restrictive policies. Vietnam’s recent attempts at a ban appear to follow this playbook, with NGOs providing “evidence” to justify prohibition.
For all their talk of health and equity, these NGOs and global health organizations are complicit in policies that harm the most vulnerable. Working people — those who can least afford to bear the health and financial costs of smoking — are left with no safer alternatives, ensuring that their dependence on traditional tobacco products remains unbroken.
Instead of celebrating bans on reduced-risk nicotine products, it’s time to call out the underlying hypocrisy. Public health policies should prioritize harm reduction and the well-being of all people, not the financial interests of state monopolies or the ideological agendas of well-funded NGOs. The fight against smoking should focus on providing practical, evidence-based solutions that empower individuals to make healthier choices — not on criminalizing alternatives that offer a way out for millions of smokers.
If the goal is truly to save lives and reduce the harms of smoking, then banning reduced-risk nicotine products is the wrong approach. It’s time to demand accountability from those who claim to advocate for public health while enabling policies that perpetuate addiction and inequality. NGOs and governments must stop playing games with people’s lives and start embracing harm reduction as a cornerstone of tobacco control policy.
Vietnam has to decide if it wants to accept the disinformation from the WHO and NGOs or join the global health supply chain in which working people will make use of nicotine delivery systems that are 95-99% less harmful. Should we blame Vietnam for embracing the lies of the WHO and Bloomberg Philanthropies or finally admit that the WHO is not about health truth but appeasing elite donors?
The WHO should be concerned about how the new President might impact U.S. funding — by harming working people and representing the whims of elite donors, they have fewer and fewer supporters across the ideological spectrum of U.S. political leaders. The truth matters.
Anger about inflation was a central driver of Donald Trump’s election, which is part of why housing policy will be so important in the next administration. For most Americans, housing costs represent their single biggest household expense, and those costs have been rising rapidly.
What will Donald Trump and his new nominee to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, former NFL football player and Texas State legislator Scott Turner, do to address the issue?
The answer is wide open. In the first administration, there was a struggle between a “Good Trump,” who wanted to take steps to build more housing, and a “Bad Trump,” who endorsed Not in My Backyard or “NIMBY” forces. Both had their moments in Trump’s first go around, and there will be a battle over which prevails in the second.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on potential increases in U.S. tariff rates. My testimony this afternoon will address four main points: the nature of tariffs and the way they are paid; the people and economic “sectors” who bear their cost; the risks tariff increases pose for American exporting industries; and the unsettling implications of an unlimited presidential power to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. By way of introduction, I am Vice President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) here in Washington, D.C., a 501(c)(3) non-profit research institution established in 1989 and publishing on a wide range of public policy topics. Before joining PPI in 2021, I served at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative from 2015 to 2021, as Assistant USTR for Policy and Economics, responsible for overseeing agency economic research and use of trade data, chairing the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee, and administering the Generalized System of Preferences.
Fundamentally, a higher across-the-board tariff rate will leave Americans worse off. It will diminish family living standards by raising store prices. It will make U.S. taxation more regressive for families and less equitable for businesses. It will damage U.S. industries through higher production costs, lost overseas customers, and potential retaliation. And finally, if implemented by presidential decree rather than legislation, it will erode a core Constitutional separation-of-powers principle.
THE NUMBERS: Spending on goods by American household type* –
Household type
Post-tax income
Share of income spent on goods**
Top “decile”
$271,600
18.9%
Average for all households
$87,900
28.6%
Single parent
$52,500
38.9%
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Live at 2:30 p.m.: PPI’s Ed Gresser testifies this afternoon at Congress’ Joint Economic Committee on potential of higher U.S. tariffs as proposed by the Trump/Vance campaign last fall. The hearing kicks off in half an hour. In the interim, here are the four main points: a higher tariff rate means higher prices, damaged industrial competitiveness, multiple harms for U.S. exporters, and — depending on the method — can mean some systemic risk of corruption and damage to American governance.
A brief explanation of tariffs first, since recently — as the testimony observes — over the past year we’ve had “some puzzling assertions that foreigners might somehow pay tariffs. No: U.S. tariffs are taxes paid by Americans.” The basics:
A tariff is a tax on goods bought from overseas, paid to Customs and Border Protection by the U.S.-based individual or business receiving those goods at the border. For retailers, the tariff becomes part of the store price; for manufacturers, construction firms, or farmers, part of the production cost. Consider, for example, a retailer ordering a container of 10,000 men’s cotton shirts, hypothetically valued at $10 each. These have an “MFN” tariff of 19.7%, set out in line 61051000 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. So the retailer writes three checks:
$100,000 to the source for the shirts
$19,700 to CBP for the tariff
$5,000 to a shipping company for carrying the container.
These together make up her “landed cost” of $124,700 — i.e., the base expenditure from which she marks up to cover her domestic transport, wage and salary, and other costs, and earn enough per shirt to profit. So the shirts have cost her $12.47 each, including $1.97 in tariff payment. A week later at the cash register, the price includes this embedded tariff, amplified by markup and sales tax. The retailer has written the check; the shopper has borne the cost. Again, U.S. tariffs are taxes paid by Americans.
Now the main points. What we raise the U.S. tariff rate — 2.4% last year — to 10% or 20%? Three economic results, and perhaps (depending on the method) something more.
First: Prices rise for families as we add 10%, or 20% (or whatever the number might be), to the current tariff system’s taxation of shirts, winter vegetables, energy, OTC medicines, and so on. A series of studies earlier this year — including from Erica York of the Tax Foundation and Brendan Duke of the Center for American Progress, both also appearing at this afternoon’s hearing — suggest that a 10% tariff plus a higher rate on Chinese-made goods would cost families $2,200 to $6,000 a year. That’s a jump of at least 10% from the $25,150 the Bureau of Labor Statistics found average families spending on goods last year.* The costs of this type of tax increase fall most heavily on low-income families and least heavily on wealthy families — naturally, since lower-income households spend more of their income than average buying goods, and top-end households less. The numbers from BLS: in 2023, single-parent families spent 38.6% of their modest $52,500 post-tax income buying food, clothes, cars, furniture, toasters, etc.. This is twice the 18.9% top-decile households (with $271,600 in post-tax income) spent on goods; the national average, 28.6%, is exactly in the middle.
Second: Goods-using parts of the U.S. economy — retail, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, restaurants — decline relative to non-goods users. This is because, all else equal, if you tax one part of the economy but not another, the taxed part gets smaller. (In relative terms, not necessarily in total.) As tariffs on energy, metals, paint, fertilizer, and other inputs raise factory and farm production costs, U.S. manufacturers and agriculture will lose ground to foreign rivals. Construction firms and retailers, meanwhile, lose sales as home prices rise and sticker shocks hit groceries, drug stores, and clothing aisles. So (again, all else equal), these goods-using parts of the economy gets smaller relative to businesses who spend less on goods — say, real estate and financial services firms — who put much more of their money into investment and services. This may already be happening even with the less ambitious 2018/2019 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and many Chinese goods: since 2018, U.S. manufacturing has dropped from 10.9% to 10.0% of American GDP, and manufacturing trade deficits have nearly doubled.
Third: Exporters suffer multiple harms. The $3 trillion American export sector — top in the world for agriculture, energy, and services, second for manufacturing — faces a particularly grim outlook even apart from the direct effect of higher production costs. Most obviously, countries hit with tariffs — especially in violation of trade agreements – often retaliate. Exporters are then the “cannon fodder” of trade wars — the first pushed into the front line, and the first to fall. To note a particular “sector.” farmers are typically early retaliation targets, and 20% of farm income comes from exports. Or to take a particular community, the 1,139 African American-owned exporters Census and BEA counted last year on average employed 21 workers at a payroll of $75,000 per worker, compared to 11 workers at $54,500 for all privately held U.S. businesses.
Less obviously, many export losses come without retaliation at all. As we noted earlier this month, the $141 billion in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona exports flowing south to Mexico last year included tens of billions of dollars in auto parts, semiconductors, and other specialized products sold to Mexican assembly plants. Tariffing or blocking the cars and appliances they produce means they will shrink; then, in turn, they place fewer orders with their Phoenix, Rio Rancho, El Paso, and Houston suppliers, and they shrink too.
Finally: Beyond the world of economics, Gresser expresses particular concern about speculation that lacking the votes to pass a big tariff increase, the incoming administration might try to impose one by decree under one of a few laws designed for other purposes — declaring a “state of emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or again using Sections 232 or 301 of trade law, etc..
Generally, as a poli-sci rule of thumb, it’s not a positive sign for any country when a president or prime minister declares an emergency and tries to rule by decree. In the U.S. — especially vis-à-vis tariffs and taxes — it shouldn’t happen, as the Constitution gives Congress unambiguous power over “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” And for good reason: if a president (or any single individual) has the power to create his or her own tax system, not only do poor and impulsive decisions become more likely, but all future presidents face a standing temptation to use tariffs in corrupt ways to reward cronies, family, and political supporters, or to punish business rivals and political critics. Thus the testimony’s close: “this risks systemic harm to governance, and I hope no administration would proceed in this way”.
* BLS’ Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023; the percentages combine all spending on goods, excluding restaurant meals.
Fiscal Policy Analyst Laura Duffy explains why, as “It’s Not 1789 Anymore” — in contrast to the founding generation, 21st-century America has the civil service and information needed for an efficient and equitable tax system — tariffs are a poor form of taxation.
And while we’re on the topic, PPI’s “radically pragmatic” budget vision puts tariffs, taxes, spending, and more all in context. From Vice President Ben Ritz and Ms. Duffy, a 10-year budget horizon featuring fairer taxes, lower debt burden, more space for discretionary spending, and restored “fiscal democracy.”
Can a president really create a new tariff system all by himself?
A PPI look at the Constitutional question on tariff powers (with text, James Madison’s notes on 1787 in Philadelphia, etc.) from last October.
Well-informed 21st-century arguments from trade lawyers/former senior trade officials on either side: Alan Wolff of the Peterson Institute says probably not, based on the Constitution and nature of trade laws; Bill Reinsch/Warren Maruyama/Lyric Galvin of CSIS believe it’s very likely, based on case law and precedent.
Happy Holidays! The Trade Fact will return in January.
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.
Korea has a vibrant tech sector, and a potent App Economy, led by companies such as Samsung, Naver, and Kakao. Korea is also a staunch ally of the U.S.
That’s why it’s particularly disturbing that the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) is working with Korean lawmakers on legislation that would impact particular U.S. tech companies. This action would make it more difficult for these companies to compete on fair terms with their Korean and Chinese rivals.
PPI believes in free trade, a principle that will come under pressure in the coming months. But we must remember that free trade implies fairness as well.
“You don’t need a degree to succeed, but you do need a map,” says Matt Sigelman, President of Burning Glass Institute, a labor market analytics firm that studies the future of work and workers. Most Americans agree, saying they want to find pathways to good jobs and a career, according to the Career Optimism Index 2024.
This nationally representative survey of U.S. workers and employers, sponsored by the University of Phoenix Career Institute, reports that most current workers say they need support setting career goals (51%) and identifying job options that match their skills and interests (53%). It also found perception gaps of roughly 25 percentage points between workers and employers when asked whether five career development supports were available to help them set goals and develop skills. For example, 67% of employers say regular conversations with managers about career paths are available, but only 42% of workers agree.
The best way to meet this current workforce need is with career navigation systems, which help learners and workers create a road map to good jobs. These systems in turn must be built on accurate information on jobs that are genuine pathways to opportunity. Let’s examine the main elements of what makes a robust career navigation system and the ways organizations develop job and career information for an effective system.
As 2024 draws to a close, I want to thank the many friends and partners who helped PPI grow and extend its reach here and around the world throughout the year. Although last month’s presidential election was dismaying, it at least has clarified the task before us. Because of its history and unswerving dedication to radical pragmatism, PPI is uniquely poised to catalyze the center-left revival our country urgently needs. It’s a big job, and we’ll need your help and support more than ever. If you’re interested in continuing to contribute to PPI’s mission, please donate or visit our website.
PPI’s 2024 Election Review: The Way Ahead for Democrats
The 2024 Presidential election sent shockwaves through American politics, and throughout the world, marking a stunning comeback for Donald Trump and delivering a sobering verdict on the Democratic Party’s current trajectory.
While many governments are grappling with what a change of U.S. administration could mean for their countries and their relationship with the United States, Democrats are coming to terms with why they lost the election, and the way ahead for their party.
New PPI research has been undertaken which reveals the crucial underlying problem: Democrats have lost their connection with working-class Americans.
This third and final installment in a series of PPI/YouGov polling of working-class voters in battleground states, along with focus groups conducted for PPI by Deborah Mattinson, former Director of Strategy for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, reveal a sobering reality: Blue-collar voters now view the Democratic Party as weak, unpatriotic, incompetent, and out of touch, while seeing Republicans as stronger, more patriotic, and increasingly aligned with their concerns.
“Working class voters rendered a harsh verdict on Democrats on November 6,” said Will Marshall, PPI President. “They see the party as weak, unpatriotic, and out of touch with their everyday economic struggles and values. Democrats need a major course correction, because they can’t build a center-left majority without reconnecting with the working families that once were the backbone of their party.”
PPI’s analysis has been informed by its work around the world to promote durable center-left governments, which is proving challenging under the continued pressure from right-leaning populism. To that end, PPI’s Project on Center-Left Renewal, led by Claire Ainsley and Will Marshall, conducted a post-election trip to Europe, making stops in Brussels, Berlin, and London. The PPI delegation discussed what went wrong for Democrats and how we can work together to rebuild and solidify the center-left coalition.
PPI will continue to engage with party leaders, strategists, and policymakers to advance a vision that reconnects Democrats with the working-class voters who have been the backbone of the party for generations. Only by reconnecting and providing them with a credible alternative for change, can we hope to win the next Presidential election. That work has to start now, and here at PPI we’re ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work on this mission.
