Category: Uncategorized

Five Ideas for a Pro-worker, Pro-employer Agenda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s election and inauguration, former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders urged Democrats to remake themselves as warriors in opposition to big business as the strategy for winning back voters.

“We need to … make it crystal clear that the Democratic Party is going to take on Wall Street, it’s going to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, it’s going to take on corporate America that is shutting down plants in this country and moving our jobs abroad,” Sanders said on CNN in February 2017.

Many progressives have taken that advice to heart. As in many past election cycles, corporate-bashing rhetoric has been the bread-and-butter of many progressive candidates and their supporters pressing for greater governmental intervention on issues such as corporate governance, wages, and worker benefits.

New Projections Make Clear We Can’t Afford the Trump Agenda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office published their first long-term budget outlook since the passage of last year’s tax cuts and February’s spending increases. In contrast to April’s budget and economic outlook, which made budget projections only for the next decade, the long-term budget outlook offers budget projections over the next 30 years – and it shows a significantly worse picture. The projections should dissuade policymakers who want to extend or double down on the unaffordable policies enacted by the Trump administration and Congress over the past year.

Over the next 30 years, CBO projects the that our national debt relative to the size of the economy will nearly double – from 78 percent of gross domestic product today to 152 percent of GDP in 2048. This would be well over the all-time high reached at the end of World War II, when our national debt topped out at 106 percent of GDP.

But there’s a big difference between our fiscal situations in 1946 and today. Back then, our debt was the result of temporary borrowing to respond to a national emergency. After the war ended, the federal government ran balanced or near-balanced budgets almost every year for the next three decades. That, combined with a post-war boom in economic growth, resulted in the national debt plummeting to just 23 percent of GDP in 1974. Our current and future debts, however, are caused not by temporary borrowing but by a structural mismatch between revenue and spending that will only grow worse as time goes on. And with potential economic growth projected to be just half of what it was in the aftermath of WW2, this structural mismatch is one that will be virtually impossible to grow our way out of.

The main problem is the unsustainable growth of social insurance programs that provide health care and retirement benefits. As our population ages, CBO projects that annual spending on these programs will increase by 5.4 percent of GDP over the next 30 years – four fifths of which is attributable to growth in just two programs: Social Security and Medicare. Because federal revenue will grow more slowly than spending on these programs, the government must borrow more and more money each year to help finance them – and that comes with a higher cost of debt service.

In 2018, the federal government will spend about $316 billion on interest payments (equivalent to 1.6 percent of GDP). By 2048, CBO projects that interest on the debt would consume 6.3 percent of GDP under current law – nearly five times today’s levels. In contrast, CBO projects that discretionary spending (the portion of the federal budget appropriated annually by Congress) will shrink from 6.3 percent of GDP in 2018 to 5.5 percent of GDP in 2048, which means that interest on the debt will eventually cost more than all discretionary spending combined.

To put these figures in perspective, discretionary spending – which is divided evenly between defense and non-defense programs – has never fallen below 6 percent of GDP since the end of WW2. CBO warns that could change as soon as 2021. The crowding out of discretionary spending has significant ramifications for our ability to invest in the future, as discretionary spending funds critical public investments such as education, infrastructure, and scientific research. These investments help to spur innovation and productivity which are essential to long-term economic growth and future prosperity. Meanwhile, CBO estimates that allowing our irresponsible fiscal policy to continue could reduce the size of our economy by $2500 per person come 2048.

As concerning as these projections are, they could be even worse if the policies enacted over the past year are allowed to remain in place. In December, Washington Republicans rammed through a package of tax cuts that will cost almost $2 trillion before much of them are scheduled to expire by the end of the next decade. A bipartisan budget deal just two months later then paved the way for nearly $300 billion in additional spending over the next two years, but these elevated spending levels are assumed by CBO to expire after 2019. Although these laws will result in debt levels that are significantly higher in the near term, neither has a substantial impact on the long-term budget outlook after 2041 because most of their policies won’t be in effect for over the latter two thirds of the projection period.

But extending current policies – or making them permanent – would dramatically worsen our fiscal situation. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that doing so would result in the national debt surpassing its post-WW2 record by 2029 (echoing PPI’s estimates from earlier this year). And by 2048, CRFB projects the national debt would be almost double the size of the economy. Simply put, we cannot afford to maintain the policies put in place during the first year of the Trump administration, let alone double down on them as many Congressional Republicans have proposed.

Instead, policymakers need to heed CBO’s warning and reverse course immediately. If they permanently increase revenue by 11 percent, cut spending by 10 percent, or adopt some combination of the two beginning in 2019, policymakers could stabilize our debt at current levels for the foreseeable future. If they wait another 10 years to act, however, the size of the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt at today’s levels would increase by half. That translates into an additional cost of over $600 (in 2019 dollars) per person per year. With unemployment at historically low levels, there is little justification for continuing to rack up massive debts today at the expense of taxpayers tomorrow.

Langhorne for Forbes, “Mohammed Choudhury on Empowered Educators, Controlled Choice, And The Third Way For Urban Districts”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Big things are quietly happening in San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD).

Ever since Pedro Martinez became superintendent in 2015, creating innovative schools and putting kids first have been at the heart of the district’s values.

Under Martinez’s leadership, the district has begun to create real change and build a system of great schools that provides educational opportunities for all families.

One of the district’s crucial steps in this educational journey was hiring Mohammed Choudhury as Chief Innovation Officer. Before coming to San Antonio, Choudhury served as the founding director of Dallas Independent School District’s Office of Transformation and Innovation.

In the year and a half since he’s been in San Antonio, Choudhury has been overseeing a new innovation zone through which the district is using a growing network of in-district charters as a vehicle to build socioeconomically diverse learning environments and to ensure that all students have access to best-fit schools. In order to prevent the creation of “islands of affluence” and ensure that high-needs families have equitable access, the district has implemented controlled choice for its open enrollment choice schools and programs.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Populism Watch: In the U.S. and EU, Battles For Human Rights at the Border

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The entire transatlantic world is embroiled in heated debates over the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Trump’s decision to revoke his own family separation policy, after it sparked outrage across the country and drew scrutiny by members of both parties in Congress, put a spotlight on just how inhumane the treatment of migrants, including asylum-seekers, can be. In Europe, Italy and Malta refused to let a Doctors Without Borders boat carrying nearly 700 migrants to dock, prompting Spain to offer its ports. To the north, German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to seek stricter measures on migrants in Germany. Below, what to follow on immigration in the coming weeks.

United States: What impact will Congress have on the separation of families at the southern border?

Trump signed an executive order on June 20th to halt the separation of families at the southern border. The policy had resulted in children and babies taken from their parents and held in cage-like structures. Many prominent Republicans, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, and CNN National Security Analyst and previous NSA director Michael Hayden spoke out against the policy. Sen. Collins stated that the policy was “traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country.” However, a recent Quinnipiac poll suggests the family separation policy is supported by 55 percent of her fellow Republicans.

As Trump’s executive order could be short-term, Congress is still moving forward on a number of bills. Senate Democrats introduced the Keep Families Together Act on June 7th. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill in the House to limit separation at or near ports of entry on June 19th. The bills had 48 and 194 co-sponsors, respectively, as of June 21st. Republicans have put forth both a hardline approach by Virginia rep. Bob Goodlatte, and a so-called “compromise” bill that would end the separation policy and provide deportation protections and a path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, while allocating $25 billion in funding for Trump’s border wall, limiting authorized and unauthorized immigration, and continuing to detain asylum-seekers. Goodlatte’s bill failed on the House floor June 21st, and voting on the “compromise” bill was delayed.

Europe: How will the EU hold up amid refusals to let refugee boats dock?

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat played a game of “not it” when a boat carrying 692 rescued migrants attempted to dock in their countries. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez allowed the migrants to dock at his ports on June 17th, ending the impasse. As the boat was first spotted by the Italian coast-guard, Italy was obligated to take in the migrants until their asylum requests would have been decided, per EU policy. The ability of EU supporters to hold the union together amid these divisions could impact its future stability, and the state of intra-European relations. European leaders plan to meet Sunday to discuss this and other migration challenges.

Amid threats to the coalition between German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and right-of-center Christian Social Union, Merkel has agreed to seek stricter immigration measures ahead of an end-of-the-month EU summit. In response to the immigration challenges arising in Germany, Trump tweeted: “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” His statement is incorrect (crime in Germany at a 25 year low), ill-considered, and needlessly alienates a key European ally.

Given the continuing advance of populist, anti-immigrant sentiment across the Western democracies, we can expect fresh controversies to arise at national borders. Every country has a right to determine who it admits, and on what terms, and to enforce its immigration laws. But that right doesn’t relieve any country of the moral duty to treat immigrants – even unwanted ones – humanely and with some concern for their reasons for coming. That’s a lesson President Trump keeps learning, the hard way.

Kane for RealClearPolicy, “Trump’s Newest Assault on Obamacare: Preexisting Conditions”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a legal brief in support of a Texas lawsuit that would kill one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): the one that ensures people with past medical problems can get affordable health insurance. It’s the latest twist in the Trump administration’s unrelenting campaign to sabotage “Obamacare,” even if that means pricing sick Americans out of health coverage altogether.

The DOJ’s intervention raised eyebrows since it marked a further politicization of a federal agency whose mission is to enforce laws passed by Congress. Instead, it is trying to unravel the law that President Trump and his party failed repeatedly to “repeal and replace.” It’s an undemocratic run around the legislative branch, an attempt by President Trump to win in court what he could not win in Congress.

Generally speaking, if you have a preexisting condition — a chronic condition such as asthma, a past cancer diagnosis, or pregnancy — and are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private group insurance, you are protected financially from the costs of those conditions. But prior to the ACA, those in the individual, or non-group, market could be denied coverage for being sick or pregnant. In fact, 18 percent of individual market applicants were denied coverage before the ACA and many more did not apply for coverage or were offered it only at unaffordable prices. Today, roughly 27 percent of adults (52 million people)not eligible for Medicare have preexisting conditions — these people would be the most at risk if these protections are thrown out.

Continue reading at RealClearPolicy. 

PPI Proposes Countering China with Smart, Targeted Strategy-Not Tariffs & Trade Wars-to Secure American Competitiveness

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The President’s blunt goal of reducing America’s trade deficit with China won’t address the threat of China’s high-tech mercantilism

WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report by Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade & Global Opportunity, proposing a smart, targeted long-term U.S. strategy to combat China’s state-directed technology mercantilism, instead of the unfocused protectionist approach being pursued by the Trump Administration.

“The Trump Administration is right to highlight the threat that China’s state-directed technology mercantilism poses to America’s economic future,” says Gerwin. “But the Administration’s strategy—based on duties that damage the American economy and ‘America First’ policies that alienate our allies—is flawed, and won’t change China’s bad behavior. Neither will doubling down on that ill-considered strategy through this week’s announcement of additional trade taxes on $200 billion in Chinese-origin goods.”

“Instead of tariffs and trade wars, the United States needs to pursue a tough, targeted, long-term strategy that enlists allies, enforces rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. We detail such a strategy in our new report.”

According to Gerwin, the linchpin of China’s future-oriented mercantilism is an extensive array of plans, policies, rules, and practices to enable the transfer and assimilation of foreign technology and intellectual property for China’s benefit. To achieve these goals, China is employing many unfair or illegal measures, including using foreign ownership restrictions and licensing approvals to compel American companies to transfer their technology, and directing and funding a highly coordinated effort by Chinese state-owned and private firms to acquire foreign tech firms. China’s conduct poses a threat to the United States, Gerwin notes, where IP-intensive industries alone support more than 45 million jobs and represent 39 percent of U.S. GDP.

But threatening duties on Chinese products is unlikely to upend China’s innovation mercantilism, Gerwin argues. Duties are likely to increase American consumer prices and reduce vital technology investments, while a tit-for-tat tariff war with China could cost an estimated 455,000 American jobs, most in less-skilled sectors. The Administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to trade is also alienating allies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere who should be natural allies in opposing China’s technology mercantilism. Finally, there’s significant concern that President Trump may undercut the long-term effort required to address Chinese mercantilism by, instead, focusing on short-term “wins.”

America should keep all options on the table in opposing China’s abusive innovation practices, including targeted and intensifying trade sanctions, writes Gerwin. But these tactics must be part of a smarter, focused, long-term U.S. strategy that includes:

  • Working more closely with—and not needlessly alienating—trade partners who also face threats from China’s unfair technology practices;
  • Using the WTO much more aggressively to launch a bold series of WTO challenges to China’s multiple rules violations;
  • Leading a global effort to establish new rules and norms to address China’s unfair innovation practices that aren’t covered by existing global trade rules, including new rules to limit digital protection-ism and unfair competition by SOEs; and
  • Designating a single, high-level official to lead focused negotiations to seek specific and verifiable commitments from China on ending China’s use of abusive practices that harm American competitors in innovative industry sectors

Gerwin calls on Congress to play a more active role in confronting China’s high-tech mercantilism by:

  • Establishing a clear set of negotiating objectives for China that underscore the primacy of eliminating China’s abusive innovation policies;
  • Providing additional resources to support ramped-up investigation, consultation, and enforcement related to China’s unfair trade and technology practices;
  • Amending current law to broaden Executive Branch authority to use national security reviews, export controls, and other tools to address security and industrial base threats posed by China’s acquisitions and technology demands; and
  • Establishing an escalating series of sanctions that would kick in if China fails to make verifiable progress in eliminating abusive innovation practices, potentially including reciprocal restrictions on Chinese technology licensing, the withdrawal of U.S. scientific and technical cooperation, and/or targeted sanctions on Chinese products based on stolen or unfairly obtained American know-how.

###

 

read more here:PPI_China_2018

Confronting China’s Threat to Open Trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A Smarter Strategy for Securing America’s Innovation Edge

In early April, reportedly after “zero substantive internal debate,” President Trump ordered the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider imposing additional tariffs on $100 billion in Chinese products. Trump’s order claimed that new tariffs were needed to retaliate against China’s threatened retaliation for tariffs that Trump had announced earlier.

Trump’s impulsive escalation was denounced by farmers, retailers, tech organizations, and others, and by bipartisan political leaders. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) put things bluntly: “This is nuts. China is guilty of many things, but the President has no actual plan to win right now.”

Perceptions versus Reality: Regulating Digital Platforms

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Digital platforms, also known as “online intermediation services,” are increasingly important for European businesses, bringing wide-ranging benefits to both individual consumers and to the participating companies. More and more new platforms are arising – in areas such as manufacturing and healthcare. Not surprisingly, as digital platforms have become more numerous and significant, they have come under the scrutiny of regulators. In particular, the European Commission has been examining the perception that European business users are being treated unfairly by digital platforms. The result was a recently
proposed new regulation “promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services.”

In this paper, we first analyze the economic and commercial constraints facing digital platforms. In particular, we focus on two economic imperatives: First, platforms have a strong incentive to maintain user trust. Second, platforms have a strong incentive to keep transaction-related costs under control.

Populism Watch: Combatting Protectionist Policies with a Positive Plan for Economic Progress

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

At the G7 Summit last week, Donald Trump’s fixation on tariffs, as well as his withdrawal of support for a Group of Seven communique, made waves. The President’s protectionist agenda could do serious and lasting damage to the U.S. economy, American workers, and the international relationships we’ve spent decades building. In response, pragmatic progressives should champion a genuine alternative economic platform focused on growth, expanded opportunity, and strengthening U.S. strategic alliances.

A 2016 report by the Progressive Policy Institute offers an approach to boosting the U.S. economy and middle class prosperity without threatening relations with key allies. The report, Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism, edited by PPI President Will Marshall, puts forth an optimistic plan to strengthen America’s economic and fiscal security–while improving vital trade and security ties with America’s G7 partners. The report speaks specifically against the kinds of protectionist policies Trump has instigated, instead encouraging the democratization of trade, the free flow of data across global borders, and the support for innovative trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The report begins with a review of the specific economic challenges faced by the United States, including slow growth since 2000, stagnating wages and living standards, and a shrinkage of the middle class. These problems cannot be fixed by trade wars and isolationism, but rather, as the report explains, require a series of positive changes in American economic and regulatory policies.

The report proposes spreading innovation across the economy through the adoption of a new ‘Innovation Platform’ aimed at stimulating public and private investment in new ideas and enterprises. It also urges improving the regulatory climate impeding greater innovation in non-digitized industries and investment in small and new businesses. The report also proposes creating business incentives to offer more flexible work, including paid leave and overtime, for gig-economy workers. The plan also includes ways to increase renewable energy creation, modernize public works, improve K-12 education, and narrow the wealth inequality gap with universal pensions.

PPI’s blueprint underlines the issues that can arise from embracing populist policies, such as mistrust in democratic institutions and threats to economic and national security. The report is a reminder that smarter, optimistic policy alternatives to populism and nationalism can benefit all Americans, as well as our allies in the G7.

Three Threats to Liberal Democracy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Trump petulantly attacked U.S. allies at the G-7 summit in Quebec, then dashed off to Singapore to heap praise on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. You couldn’t ask for a more vivid illustration of the illiberal spirit that shapes his “America First” doctrine.

But Trump is hardly alone in embracing hyper-nationalism. According to PPI President Will Marshall, illiberal nationalism is the common thread running through the three most potent threats to the democratic world: the rise of national populism, especially in Europe; Russia’s reversion to despotism at home and adventurism abroad; and, the emergence of China’s autocratic capitalism as a plausible alternative to market democracy.

Marshall elaborated on the dangers of neo-nationalism in comments prepared for the Biennial Colloquy on the State of Democracy, organized in Rome this spring by the Centro Studi Americani. That commentary follows:

Langhorne for The Washington Post, “D.C. Graduation Fraud? Not in the Charter Schools.”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

For the past six months, scandal after scandal has come to light in the nation’s capital as the media’s interrogation lamps have shone on D.C. Public Schools.

In November, WAMU exposed a graduation scandal at Ballou High School, leading the Office of the State Superintendent to launch an investigation into DCPS.  The investigation revealed district-wide complicity in a systemic culture that pressured teachers to pass students regardless of their attendance or academic performance. The report concluded that one in three 2017 DCPS graduates were awarded diplomas in violation of district policies.

Best-case scenario, 67 percent of the class of 2018 graduated. That’s a significant drop from the 73 percent rate the district claimed in 2017.

What’s happened in DCPS is tragic — not only that the number of students graduating declined but also that DCPS has been graduating students who aren’t prepared for life beyond school.

Yet there is a story of real academic progress in the nation’s capital. It’s the story of the other public schools, the ones educating nearly 50 percent of public school students. It’s the story of D.C.’s charter schools.

Continue reading at The Washington Post.

PPI Statement on Trump Administration’s New China Tariffs & China’s Announced Retaliation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to the Trump Administration’s announcement of new tariffs on Chinese-origin imports and China’s announced retaliation:

“China’s technology mercantilism is a serious threat to America’s economic future that requires a tough and effective American response, but the Trump Administration’s announcement today of $50 billion in duties on Chinese-origin products is not even close to that response.

“Making American businesses and working families pay billions in new trade taxes won’t change China’s bad behavior. Instead, China will respond—as it has already announced—with billions in targeted retaliatory tariffs that will make it much harder for American manufacturers and farmers to export there. It cannot be overstated—these tit-for-tat tariffs will destroy jobs and devastate communities throughout the United States.

“Responding to China’s unfair trade practices and technology theft with “America First” protectionism is a terrible mistake. The Administration’s deeply flawed and poorly focused strategy—based on duties that damage America’s economy and “go-it-alone” trade policies that alienate vital allies—will have large-scale and long-term repercussions.

“Instead of instigating trade wars, the United States should confront China’s unfair trade practices with a targeted, long-term response that enlists our international allies, enforces current trade rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations on key issues, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. PPI will outline such a strategy in a new report to be released next week.

“Open global markets are manifestly in America’s interest. Given a level playing field, America’s innovative businesses can compete and win anywhere. In trade wars, nearly everyone loses.”

###

Ritz for NY Daily News, “How Trump and Republicans are damning Social Security and Medicare”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

When the Social Security and Medicare trustees warned last week that both programs are on tenuous financial footing, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said: “The administration’s economic agenda — tax cuts, regulatory reform and improved trade agreements — will generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

As more and more baby boomers retire, Social Security and Medicare will require additional revenue just to fund the same level of benefits enjoyed by previous generations. Yet instead of raising more revenue to help fund these programs, the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans recklessly pursued a package of tax cuts that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects will reduce revenue by $2 trillion over the next decade. This law put Social Security and Medicare on a decidedly less stable path.

Continue reading at the New York Daily News.

Update on European App Economy jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In this post we update our October 2017 report, “The App Economy in Europe: Leading Countries and Cities, 2017.”  That report found 1.89 million App Economy jobs in Europe as of January 2017. Our new results find 2.05 million App Economy jobs in Europe as of April 2018, an increase of 8.3% (or an annual rate of 6.6%).  As discussed in the earlier report, our methodology is based on an systematic analysis of online job postings for jobs using App Economy skills, benchmarked to the number of information and communications technology professionals in each country, as reported by the International Labour Organization.

The table below lists the number of App Economy jobs by country, and by mobile operating system.  Many App Economy jobs require both iOS and Android skills, as indicated in the online job posting, so they are listed are in both the iOS and Android ecosystems.

App Economy Jobs by Country (April 2018)
Total app economy jobs iOS ecosystem jobs Android ecosystem jobs
Austria 37 28 30
Belgium 30 23 24
Czech 31 20 22
Denmark 54 45 44
Finland 48 32 44
France 314 220 262
Germany 327 262 255
Greece 8 5 6
Hungary 20 14 17
Ireland 20 17 12
Italy 84 62 71
Luxembourg 3 2 3
Netherlands 201 167 155
Norway 52 46 43
Poland 75 44 59
Portugal 36 25 28
Romania 27 20 23
Spain 98 76 84
Sweden 94 70 81
Switzerland 33 28 29
United Kingdom 353 291 292
30-country total* 2049 1576 1666
*Includes estimates for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Data: ILO, Indeed, PPI

 

Goldberg for RealClearEnergy, “America’s Mayors Should Not File Copycat Climate Suits”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The United States Conference of Mayors met in Boston last week, and a key topic was climate change. Mayors have been looking for ways to exert leadership on this issue, but one idea that should be tossed to the waste bin is suing America’s energy producers over so-called “climate change injuries.” These lawsuits, started by a handful of California mayors last summer, are orchestrated efforts to sue companies for doing nothing more than producing the energy we use every day. The litigation’s backers are actively recruiting mayors to file carbon copy lawsuits.

Progressives who care about climate change should not reflexively cheer or join this litigation. The lawsuits, the brainchild of a 2012 conference in La Jolla, California, of environmental activists and lawyers, are driven by private law firms. They seek to make energy companies pay for local infrastructure projects, such as sea walls. Let’s be real: Building a seawall around our coastline and making energy producers pay for it has as much to do with combatting climate change as Trump’s border wall has to do with illegal immigration — nothing but symbolism.

Continue reading at RealClearEnergy.

Populism Watch: 4 Things To Watch as the New Italian Government Moves Forward

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In Italy, the first populist government in Western Europe was sworn in on June 1st. The win was secured by a coalition between the right-wing League and the eurosceptic 5Star Movement. Below, four things to follow in the coming months:

  1. How long can the coalition hold?

Amid divisions (the League is a right-wing party with a northern background, 5Star is an ideological mixed bag with southern roots) the two parties succeeded in holding together through the election. Their divides, such as differences of opinion on combating economic decline (the League has proposed precipitous tax cuts, while Five Star has supported funds for the unemployed) did not break the coalition. Yet support for the League has grown from 17 to 25 percent since March, while support for 5Star has plateaued at 32 percent. Of additional concern is Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Conte is a former academic, whose only government experience has been a stint on the government administrative justice council. What this means for the future of the coalition is yet to be seen. Italy has had over 60 governments since becoming a republic in 1946.

  1. The Impact of the Coalition on Stocks, the Euro, and Italian Public Debt

The coalition has put forth a 58-page agreement outlining its agenda. The plan could cost as much as €125 billion, a far greater sum than the €500 million the coalition has budgeted for it, according to a report by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. The plan includes a guaranteed income of €780 a month and a near-flat tax policy. Of additional concern is the coalition’s unpredictable impact on stocks, shaky support of the euro, and willingness to reduce public debt. The advancement, stagnation or decline of the Italian economy under the new government may impact future support for the coalition.

  1. Impact on New Arrivals

The future for migrants, immigrants, and asylum seekers within Italy is uncertain. Interior Minister Salvini has taken a harsh stance, saying “the good times for illegals are over – get ready to pack your bags.” Salvini has pledged to deport up to 500,000 immigrants without papers. Tensions between Italy’s native population and immigrants, particularly migrants, has risen steadily. The fatal shooting of Malian-born legal resident Soumaila Sacko, a trade unionist who protested working conditions for migrants, has done nothing to ease tensions.

  1. Impact on International Relations

Conte has explored lifting the sanctions placed on Russia following the crisis in Ukraine. NATO opposes the idea. In a speech to parliament on June 5th, Conte has pledged to both “reaffirm our convinced membership of NATO” and “support opening up to Russia” including reviewing the sanctions that “risk humiliating Russian civil society.” In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “I think the economic sanctions are important because they send a clear message that what Russia has done in Ukraine has to have consequences.”

These economic, immigration, and foreign affairs concerns will impact both the longevity of the coalition, and the future of Italy, the EU, and international relations as a whole.