Category: Uncategorized

Chuka Umunna: These are “perilous times” for the Left

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On Wednesday, PPI hosted a lunch event at the National Press Club, “Progressives for Innovation and Growth: A Transatlantic Conversation,” on the economic challenge facing center-left parties. There, Chuka Umanna–Labour MP for Streatham and UK Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills– gave the following keynote address:

Thank you so much to Will and the entire Progressive Policy Institute team for organising this gathering and inviting me to speak.

It is no secret that, as we sought to modernise the UK Labour Party in the 1990s and transform ourselves from a party of protest to a credible party of government, we drew much inspiration from President Clinton and the New Democrats. PPI was an incubator of so many of the ideas of that time which took the New Democrats into office. You were the original modernisers.

Unfortunately my party is suffering a relapse. We were established to be the political wing of working people in Britain, resolutely focused on ensuring that everyone has a stake in the future. But, too often over the last five years in opposition we behaved like a party of protest. Now we urgently need to modernise again so people can trust us to govern once more and fulfil our historic covenant with those that founded our Party.

The Democrats here have bucked the trend of progressive parties across the advanced world – the trend of losing General Elections since the global financial crisis. So, coming back to tap into your thinking and exchange views is a no-brainer.

Progressive challenge

We meet at perilous times for centre left “progressive” parties, across advanced economies.

We face a resurgent Conservative Party who have told a story about debt and deficit issues following the global financial crisis far more effectively than progressives. That crisis was a failure of the laissez-faire economic model the centre right were in thrall to and yet they have made the political weather since 2008/9.

In opposing the centre-right, we also compete with the populist left – in particular on economic policy – and the populist right – on issues of identity and belonging. I will touch on all this shortly.

The Danish Social Democrats provide the most recent example. In spite of winning the largest share of the vote by a comfortable margin in their General Election last month, they are out of power.

In May the British Labour Party went down to our worst defeat since 1983. The defeat comprised different elements: a failure to tackle Conservative hegemony in the Southern regions of England outside London; a challenge by the populist right – in the form of the UK Independence Party – in seats in the North of England; and a wipe out at the behest of the Scottish Nationalist Party in Scotland. A perfect storm.

It was England primarily that delivered the Conservative majority. We must win back support in Scotland but will need to prioritise taking seats from the Conservatives in England if we are to win again.

I cannot cover all of the reasons for our defeat but I shall make some observations on what it says about the challenges progressives face across the advanced world in this era of globalisation.

Economic competence

In the immediate aftermath of our defeat people have naturally prayed in aid arguments to suit their particular political perspective. But most agree our perceived lack of economic competence severely compromised our ability to gain the support needed to win.

It wasn’t that people like the Conservatives more than us – far from it – but they felt voting Labour represented a risk in a world of uncertainty. This was particularly so amongst older voters who vote in greater numbers and amongst whom support for Labour since 2010 dropped by eight points.

How did this come to pass?

Rahm Emanuel famously said you should never let a serious crisis go to waste. Our Conservative rivals heeded this advice, as did many other centre right parties across Europe. The 2008/9 crash occurred under our watch and they used it ruthlessly to make their argument.

In the UK the crash had precipitated a recession that brought about a collapse in tax revenues leading to a deficit of 11.1 per cent of GDP in 2009/10. This was inevitably going to have to be dealt with once demand and growth returned. So from 2008 in opposition through to government in 2010, Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne reframed the economic debate in our country from one centred around the need for demand stimulus, to one resolutely focused on deficit and debt reduction.

Osborne argued that the Labour Government’s domestic spending before the crash had threatened our economy, and went on to argue – successfully – through the last Parliament, that if elected again, we would borrow, spend and tax more than the Conservatives. In so doing, our values were attacked too – they argued that not only were we incompetent, but that we were reckless and irresponsible too.

It was a ludicrous argument. We had reduced the national debt from 42 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 37 per cent of GDP on the eve of the crash in 2007. Before the crisis hit the deficit was small and unremarkable, averaging 1.3 per cent from 1997 to 2007 compared to 3.2 per cent beforehand under the previous 18 years of Tory rule. Indeed, so relaxed was Mr Osborne about borrowing before the crash that he signed up to our spending plans in 2007.

No matter. Mr Osborne’s argument stuck. As you would expect, he was greatly assisted by the fact that – notwithstanding the fact that the Labour government did not cause the crisis – the crash occurred whilst we were in office. But this was compounded because, once we left office, we failed to sufficiently concede where we went wrong – not properly regulating the banks and rebalancing our economy so we weren’t so exposed when the crash hit; in turn this compromised our ability to communicate what we got right.

At the general election just passed we had good policy to better balance our economy between sectors and regions, and to improve our trade position, but this was drowned out by the noise being made in relation to our alleged past economic misdemeanours on the deficit.

We were also not helped by some of the rhetoric the party deployed which gave the impression that we were against wealth creation and the productive businesses we would need to help us reform the economy if elected

Going forward we will need to ensure any weakness in our fiscal position is dealt with. It starts by asserting again and again that reducing our borrowing is a progressive endeavour – much as Democratic Nominee Bill Clinton did in 1992. We will need policy positions consistent with this goal. But, we must relate this to our values: compassion to ensure all have the support they need to get on; a responsibility to run sound public finances so we have resources to invest in people.

A vision of the future

We also failed to set out a vision of the future of our economy and our country that all could rally around.

Much of what we said focused on how terrible the country was and how we would regulate and clamp down on the many vested interests that we identified as being the source of all ills. This was hardly an optimistic, positive and patriotic story about what our country is and could be in the future. So, little wonder that even if voters did not believe the economy had improved under the Tories, too few believed it would get any better under Labour.

As globalisation has marched on and left too many behind, there has been an increasing sense in our country that the economy is not being run in the interests of people who work hard, play by the rules and do the right thing. In the absence of a positive narrative to explain how under a smart, enterprising Labour government every person and family would be empowered to take advantage of the opportunities the new digitally connected world can bring, social security and immigration dominated.

The social security bill was consistently one of the top three issues throughout the last Parliament. We spend more than £200bn a year – almost a third of all government spending – on the welfare state and this is not sustainable in the long run.

The Conservatives have chosen, in the main, to target entitlements the working poor and vulnerable receive to help make work pay – as the best way of reducing the social security bill. This is not something we would entertain. But we failed to set out an alternative way of reducing the benefits bill that convinced. In fact, we voted against every single social security measure put through parliament which helped reinforce the notion that we were not serious at getting to grips with this.

The price of successful politics is a constructive alternative and we did not have one. We need to rebuild support for our welfare state by setting out an alternative that puts notions of contribution and responsibility at its heart – where we all have a responsibility to work when we can and contribute in to the system if we want to we take out. That is what most people mean by fairness.

In addition to this, Ukip have sought to place blame for the lack of fairness in the system with immigrants. Many blue collar workers have understandably been troubled by the impact of immigration on our labour market. Whatever arguments are made by business of the necessity of immigration, for many blue collar workers it has meant more competition for jobs and the undercutting of their wages. The funding of public services has also been too slow to take account of population changes, putting local public services in some areas under pressure. This has proved toxic and provided fertile terrain for the populist right to use for their own divisive agenda.

The solution is not to pander to anti-immigrant sentiment or ignore it but to ensure proper enforcement of labour market rules and that new arrivals contribute into our system before they take out.

But, if we are to tackle the underlying causes of concern about social security and immigration, we must implement modern industrial strategies to stimulate innovation, grow the industries that produce better paying jobs, give people an education that match the needs of our industries, and give them the skills to connect into the digital global economy. Our education systems currently are simply not up to the job of giving workers the skills to adapt throughout their working lives to multiple career changes and constant technological advance. Again, we defended the status quo.

Above all, we need a system which doesn’t just treat people as commodities but where we value the work people do – the vocational and technical as well as the academic – and give them more of a say and greater employee engagement in the work place, fostering a greater sense of power and security in an uncertain, fast-changing world. This was not sufficiently central to our message – it must be for all progressive parties.

In other words there is work to do; real heavy lifting on the relationship between the economy and welfare if we are to win again.

National identity and belonging

The debate on immigration is symptomatic of the wider impact of globalisation.

People feel increasingly powerless in an age of globalisation that has brought about insecurity for so many. As a result, issues of belonging and cultural identity have taken on an increased importance as people search for security and solidarity in a fast changing world.

They are also increasingly mistrustful of a political elite who they believe is remote, passing laws and pulling levers at the centre, at a time when people want more power for themselves and autonomy for their communities. Progressives ignore this at our peril. If we do not address it, nationalism will flourish, which brings me to Scotland.

Although we were on the winning side of the argument in the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum, we lost 40 of our 41 seats there to the Scottish Nationalist Party at the General Election this year.

The rise of nationalism there was a factor that has deep, cultural roots. But, more than that, the constitutional issue of independence had become intertwined with issues of social justice. Whereas the English have tended to be slightly to the right of the Labour Party on economic matters, Scottish voters tend to the left of the party. The 2014 referendum campaign did not deliver the result the SNP desired, but it did give them the opportunity to set out a vision of the kind of independent Scotland they wished to create. In 2015 they successfully argued that an independent Scotland would be more progressive, stand up and protect them in a changing world.

In a sense, what we are witnessing – as the psephologist who came closest to predicting the UK result, Professor John Curtis of Strathclyde University, has argued – is the end of British electoral politics as we know it. He argues that the first break came in the 1970s when the links between Northern Ireland’s politics and the rest of the UK’s were broken; he argues we have just witnessed the second break where Scotland’s politics takes on a different character to that of the rest of UK, powered by issues of national belonging and cultural identity.

I think we can maintain the union but we should embrace people’s natural desire in our different nations to have more autonomy over their own affairs and give voice to the different cultural identities in the UK, whilst maintaining the benefits that the pooling and sharing of resources across the constituent parts of the UK brings. This is why I believe we need a more federal structure for the nations of the UK with a new English Parliament to sit alongside bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need a federal Labour Party too which recognises the unique character of each nation.

With a federal UK structure no nation will feel left out; each nation’s voice can be properly heard whilst maintaining a UK parliament that will be stronger as a result. To facilitate this we should establish a Constitutional Convention with all elements of political and civil society willing to participate, to settle this issue this Parliament. This is bread and butter for you here where the constitution takes pride of place. It would represent radical but much needed change in our country. It would be constructive of our renewal – government of the people, by the people, for the people perhaps.

Conclusion

I want to conclude in making a final observation. Our offer and the debate during the election was far too parochial.

If one considers what has had the greatest impact economically on people’s wallets in the first half of this year, it was the price of oil per barrel coming down to around $58 – an international phenomenon. The multinationals we seek not only to work with but ensure pay their fair share and play by rules, know no borders. And the biggest challenges we face, be it environmental or global terrorism, cross borders in a way they did not before.

This says to me that we can only ultimately build a fairer more equal world in an era of globalisation if we as progressives become far more organised and co-ordinated at a supra national level. For the UK that starts with maintaining our membership of the European Union in the coming EU referendum, but it extends beyond that to other institutions like the UN, the WTO. A better networked state in the modern age will be better placed to help its people thrive in this new era.

I look forward to working with you, in common cause and for the Common Good in the years ahead.

 

 

Wall Street Journal: Obama’s Big Idea for Small Savers: ‘Robo’ Financial Advice

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If you’re a Democratic policy maker worried about retirement savings for the little guy, would you deny millions of small savers access to financial advisers in ways that could cost them $80 billion in the next market downturn? Would you ask working families to pay more to keep the adviser they have?

The obvious answer to both is no. But the White House and the Labor Department have teamed up to propose a new “fiduciary rule” on brokers and advisers serving individual retirement account investors, which would produce precisely these unintended consequences.

The White House starts with good intentions—a concern that too many Americans are unprepared for retirement, and need to save more, and invest wisely. But instead of urging Americans to save, the administration has launched a campaign against a phony villain. If you’re not on a path to a secure retirement, the White House implies, it’s because evil financial advisers are ripping you off.

Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal.

The California Tech/Info Boom: How It Is Spreading Across the State

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here’s an astounding fact. Since the recovery started in 2009, California businesses have created 1.5 million new private sector jobs. That puts California number one in private sector job creation among all states, slightly ahead of second place Texas, and more than double that of third place Florida. Moreover, total job creation in California since 2009 exceeds that of Germany, Europe’s largest and most successful economy.

How can this spectacular performance be explained? The answer: creativity and innovation. Since 2009, the Golden State’s economy has ridden the power of the sizzling tech/info revolution. From mobile to social media, to online video and the Internet of Things, California-based companies are leading the way.

This paper has two main goals. First, we document how the tech/info boom is helping propel the California economy. We carefully define the tech/info sector, building on our previous studies of California and other tech hubs around the world. We then show that the tech/info sector has directly accounted for more than 30% of the increase in real wage payments in California. These gains have boosted tax revenues and helped California run a budget surplus. In addition, the strong growth in California’s tech/info sector has translated into faster non-tech job growth than the rest of the country.

Download “2015.07-Mandel_The-California-Tech-Info-Revolution_How-It-Is-Spreading-Across-the-State”

PPI Statement on Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall today released the following statement after the announcement of a landmark nuclear agreement between the United States, Iran, and five other world powers:

“Even before today’s nuclear deal with Iran was struck, President Obama’s critics accused him of giving away the store. Now the burden of proof falls on them to show why no deal is better than this deal.

“No deal means no constraints on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and produce plutonium, giving it two paths to nuclear weapons. How will perpetuating this dangerous status quo make America or its allies safer?

“In contrast, the agreement reached in Vienna today between major world powers and Iran closes both paths to the bomb for the next decade. It also extends the embargo on missiles and bars Iran from designing warheads and testing nuclear detonators. Crucially, Iran has agreed to submit to more intrusive inspections than required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“There’s no question, in short, that the deal moves Iran back from the nuclear threshold. Capping nearly two years of hard bargaining, it is a major diplomatic achievement for President Obama and his two Secretaries of State: Hillary Clinton and especially the indefatigable John Kerry.

“But it’s also a victory for collective security. The United States alone could not have wrung concessions from Iran without strong backing from its negotiating partners, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. Congress needs to keep that fact in mind as it takes up the accord. Unilateral action by U.S. lawmakers risks cracking the extraordinary united front the international community has maintained against Iran’s nuclear program.

“The agreement is far from perfect—no diplomatic deal ever is. Large questions remain about how and when sanctions on Iran will be lifted, and what happens 10 years from now when Iran resumes nuclear enrichment with more modern equipment, ostensibly to fuel civilian nuclear power. But the President has made undeniable progress, and he deserves progressives’—and the country’s—support.”

# # #

RealClearBooks: Who Will Break the Spell of Polarization?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans are frequently blamed for America’s intensifying political polarization, and not without cause. Surveys show that they have moved farther to the right than Democrats have to the left and are less disposed to political compromise. The GOP also benefits more from polarization, in that it induces paralysis in Washington. For conservatives who see the federal government as a wealth- and liberty-destroying Leviathan, political obstruction is no vice.

Yet liberals seem to be warming to the new politics of polarization, too. Just as anti-government populism animates the right, anti-corporate populism is ascendant on the left. Populist tribunes like Senator Elizabeth Warren and New York mayor Bill DeBlasio are preaching a gospel of economic justice through redistribution, while Senator Bernie Sanders is peddling his version of European-style social democracy to ecstatic crowds on the campaign trail.

Can America really be moving simultaneously to the right and the left? Where have all the moderates gone? Are we doomed to political stalemate, or will one of the parties muster a durable majority for its governing vision?

How we came to this impasse, and how it might be broken, is the subject of Shattered Consensus: The Rise and Decline of America’s Postwar Political Order, by conservative scholar James Piereson. Progressives shouldn’t be put off by the author’s conservative leanings; this elegantly written book offers a perceptive if not always convincing guide to how U.S. conservatives understand themselves and their liberal opponents.

Piereson traces our present deadlock to the end of the broad political consensus forged in the crucible of Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. He sees the New Deal realignment as the latest of three “regimes” that have shaped the nation’s political evolution (Jefferson’s revolution of 1800 and the Civil War having set the stage for long stretches of Democratic and Republican ascendance, respectively). At the height of the postwar consensus, liberal ideas dominated U.S. political thought. The rout of laissez-faire economics and isolationism shoved conservatives to the margins, reducing their views, in Lionel Trilling’s memorable phrase, to “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” Americans voiced high levels of trust in government, which after all had saved the free-enterprise system, provided basic social protections for workers and the elderly, and organized the great victory over the Axis powers. Liberal historians like Louis Hartz and Richard Hofstadter proclaimed a national consensus on basic political values—an underlying “American creed” to which both parties adhered, even as they offered varying interpretations of personal liberal and equality.

Reading Piereson brought to mind a conversation I had years ago with another eminent scholar of the consensus school, Seymour Martin Lipset. In postwar Europe, he said, elections were usually contests between parties with distinct ideologies (e.g., Democratic Socialists vs. Christian Democrats) and separate social bases (working class vs. the bourgeoisie). In contrast, he likened U.S. parties to Macy’s and Gimbel’s—rival department stores competing for the same customers.

For better or worse, that dynamic has changed. Traditionally heterogeneous coalitions, U.S. parties are becoming more ideologically cohesive. Republican moderates are now a weak minority and liberal Republicans are virtually extinct. The parties tailor their appeals to different “customers”—the Republicans mainly white, working-class, and older voters, the Democrats young, minority, and highly educated voters. And it’s not just the parties; U.S. voters seem to want to live among people with a similar political outlook, and they’re sorting themselves accordingly.

As Piereson notes, the collapse of a reigning political paradigm makes it hard to cobble together majorities and govern. He wants a government capable of reducing public debt, stimulating economic growth, and reining in entitlement spending. Progressives would add other things to his list, but in either case, America needs a functioning government, even as left and right battle over its proper size and scope.

Piereson argues, plausibly, that the country is ripe for a “fourth revolution” that will realign U.S. politics around a broad majority. Which party is most likely to bring it about?

Here, the author’s analytical acuity deserts him, and partisanship takes the wheel. Take his account of the rise of “punitive liberalism” in the 1960s and 1970s. As liberal reformism curdled into hatred of U.S. society, Piereson suggests, liberals used government to push busing and other measures intended to “punish the nation for its past crimes.” Well, yes, some radicals spelled America with a “K” and called for revolution. But mainstream liberals fought nobly to advance civil rights; waged war on poverty, with less success; defended democracy against Soviet communism; tackled industrial pollution for the first time; and, ended a deeply divisive war in Vietnam. Did they leverage an affluent society’s sense of guilt to achieve these goals? Sure, but their aims were plainly ameliorative, not punitive.

Similarly skewed is Piereson’s caricature of President Obama as a ruthless partisan determined to foist a social-democratic agenda on the country. In fact, Obama ran a philosophically vague campaign in 2008, emphasizing his credentials as a “post-partisan” outsider who could rise above the toxic polarization in Washington. He did campaign on expanding health-care coverage—an idea that enjoyed majority support in 2008—but the plan he proposed once in office was a huge disappointment to the left, which wanted then, as it wants now, a single-payer plan.

Piereson also accuses Obama of “disdaining any compromise with Republicans over budget issues.” In fact, Obama sought a grand fiscal bargain after the 2010 elections, but congressional Republicans were mainly interested in killing Obamacare, even at the risk of government shutdowns and default. Deals were struck to whittle down the deficit, but generally on conservative grounds—as liberals bitterly noted—since most of the savings came from domestic spending cuts rather than from tax hikes. Any dispassionate observer of this president (and I speak as a Hillary supporter in 2008) has to admit that pragmatism, not ideology, is Obama’s political lodestar.

Piereson skips over the 1990s, possibly because the Clinton years belie his narrative of a Democratic party captured by liberal elites and alienated from Middle America. The advent of the New Economy and the Internet; vibrant growth and full employment; steep reductions in poverty and welfare dependence; falling crime and teen pregnancy rates; and, for good measure, a balanced budget—this recent stretch of effective progressive governance is conspicuously absent from Shattered Consensus.

Piereson hits nearer the mark in his account of Democrats’ current obsession with inequality and redistributionist politics, which he thinks will trigger a voter backlash against higher taxes and more intrusive government. One Republican presidential candidate who seems to agree is Jeb Bush, who has made 4 percent growth his campaign calling card. Whatever happens next year, Piereson is right to identify slow economic growth as the main challenge confronting America’s next “political regime.”

And plenty of pragmatic Democrats share that view: Hillary Clinton said as much in an interview with Charlie Rose, though she hasn’t emphasized the point recently. But imagine a 2016 presidential race that centers not on the ritual flaying of big government or big business, but on which party has the best ideas for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and shared prosperity. That would be a welcome sign that, consensus or no, our democracy is working again.

Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We review recent trends in federal infrastructure spending and the policy case for dynamic scoring of revenue and spending legislation. The use of dynamic scoring depends upon the magnitudes of near‐term impacts on economy‐wide spending and the long‐run impacts on productivity. We conclude that federal infrastructure investment should be dynamically scored.

A simple example suggests that $100 billion in new infrastructure spending could generate an extra $62.5 to $165.5 billion in national output over the next twenty years, based on a range of scenarios. Assuming a 20 percent effective tax rate, this $100 billion infrastructure investment would generate a 20‐year revenue offset ranging from $12.5 to $33.1 billion.

Download “201507-MHFIGI-Dynamic-Scoring-AAF-PPI-Final”

U.S. News & World Report: The Wrong School Choice

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Nevada’s new school voucher law will make inequality worse.

I’m struggling to understand an intellectual disconnect of the first order.

Nearly everyone involved in education reform wrings their hands about the achievement gaps between poor and nonpoor, between white and minority students. And most Americans are increasingly disturbed about widening inequality of income and wealth.

Yet when Nevada enacted the nation’s first law last month creating almost universal access to vouchers (technically, education savings accounts, or ESAs), few reformers pointed out that it would undermine equal opportunity. Dozens of bloggers weighed in; the Fordham Institute even invited 14 of them to comment. And not one of the 14 mentioned that the new bill would make access to quality education less equal than it is today.

Why do I say it will do that? Because it allows families to add to their education savings account to buy a more expensive education. Most parents want what’s best for their children, so those who can afford it will do just that. Those who can’t will not. And the education market will stratify by income, far more than it already does. In a decade, it will look like the markets for houses, cars and other private goods, with huge disparities based on wealth.

I just don’t get it. We need bold reform of education, yes. But do we want to widen the achievement gap? Do we want to increase inequality in America? More than half of public students in America are poor (i.e., they qualify for a free or reduced price lunch). Do we want to leave them all behind in inferior schools?

Continue reading at U.S. News & World Report. 

Uncovering the Hidden Value of Digital Trade: Towards a 21st Century Agenda of Transatlantic Prosperity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The United States and the European Union enjoy one of the healthiest trade relationships on the planet. The nearly $1.06 trillion [€770 billion] of goods and services theyexchange each year accounts for almost one-third of the annual trade flows worldwide.  And yet, even figures that large may be only the tip of the iceberg. As digital technology becomes ever more pervasive and the world economy morphs into fundamentally new shapes and configurations – forming and re-forming around the radically simple and cheap communication made possible by the Internet – the foundation of economic life is shifting, too. These days, Europe and the U.S. no longer compete head-to-head over something as basic as who can field the best home-based team to get the finest results. Instead, they compete as leaders of complex supply chains with design, manufacture and ultimately consumption spread around the globe in a multifaceted and unprecedented way. They compete to offer advanced products and services, many of which will be delivered digitally to customers in far away destinations, whom the salesman will never know and likely never meet. And they struggle – under these intensely new circumstances – to make heads or tails of a fast-moving reality, where decisions that will determine our fate tomorrow need to be made in real time today.

Obviously, this is knowledge-intensive work, and that’s precisely the point. More and more, global trade has come to rely on a vital new commodity: data. Data is how a modern company understands and serves its customers better. Data is what gives managers their understanding into what is happening around the world. And, increasingly, data is the product itself, serving as the raw material for new insights put forward as new services, and as the reservoir of a creative economy where knowledge is often diffused horizontally without the intermediaries whose role in commerce defined the pre-data economy. Put simply, data and the consumption of data are not just a new natural resource – they are the key commodity in today’s knowledge-based economy. They are the essential element whose mastery (or incompetence) will determine which regions succeed and which regions fail, who will create and own the new jobs, and who will serve primarily as passive consumers of other people’s digital services. The way we use data, the speed and effectiveness with which we collect it, analyse it – and ultimately share it – will set the winners from the losers in this very modern world of cheap computing power, increasingly irrelevant national boundaries and additional-marginal-cost-free global interconnection.

Download “2015.07-Mandel-Hofeinz-Uncovering-the-Value-of-Digital-Trade_Towards-a-21st-Century-Agenda-of-Transatlantic-Prosperity”

The Hill: New Caucus Puts Spotlight on UN Peacekeeping

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the United Nations commemorates the 70th anniversary of its founding this week, it can claim a major accomplishment in the 69 peacekeeping operations that it has led around the world since 1948. Soon, the U.N.’s “blue helmets” will be receiving a renewed spotlight on Capitol Hill through a Congressional Peacekeeping Caucus recently formed by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a veteran of the Afghanistan War, and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Although peacekeeping operations were not specifically established by the U.N.’s original charter, they grew directly out of the organization’s mandate to de-escalate armed conflicts and stabilize combat zones. The U.N.’s 16 current operations include longstanding missions in Cyprus, Lebanon, India and Pakistan. But peacekeeping forces — which are provided voluntarily by member states and operate under the U.N. flag — are now also active in countries including Haiti, Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and Liberia. With more than 125,000 active personnel, U.N. peacekeepers are currently the world’s single largest deployed military force.

Formation of the new bipartisan Congressional Peacekeeping Caucus was spurred by a visit in late 2013 by Kinzinger and Cicilline to a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Liberia. Afterward, in a joint op-ed in The Hill, the congressmen said that “the experience showcased that the U.S. must remain committed to working with the United Nations to tackle international problems.” The new caucus aims to inform members and staff about the benefits and challenges of U.N. peacekeeping operations and how these can advance U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

Continue reading at The Hill.

PRESS RELEASE: PPI Applauds Congress on Trade Votes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, today released the following statement after passage of Trade Promotion Authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation in Congress:

PPI applauds Congress for voting this week to advance a forward-looking trade agenda that will help grow America’s economy and support good jobs—while also upholding important progressive values.

Passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) will enable the Obama Administration to complete negotiations of a vital market-opening trade agreement with countries in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region, and will jumpstart significant trade talks with our allies in Europe, as well.

TPA will do this while requiring that all U.S. trade pacts advance progressive goals in critical areas like labor rights, environmental protection, and open digital trade. And TPA will help ‘democratize’ trade through rules to enable small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers to more directly participate in and benefit from global trade.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) has been a progressive priority since the Kennedy Administration. In voting to extend and expand TAA, Congress will assure that those American workers whose jobs are impacted by trade can obtain the support and training they need to succeed in an increasingly knowledge-based global economy.

PPI particularly acknowledges those pro-trade House and Senate Democrats—especially Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Representative Ron Kind (D-Wis.), and key members of the House New Democrat Coalition—whose support was decisive in advancing the trade agenda. These pro-growth progressives understand that trading with a growing global middle class can power more inclusive growth for Americans, and they wisely used their influence to assure that the trade process is significantly more open and transparent. As we continue an important debate on trade and its benefits, Americans should listen closely to these thoughtful leaders.

The Sacramento Bee: Science, not politics, should drive California regs on BPA

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the presidential campaign season gets underway, it reminds us how much we loath the politics of fear mongering. Half-truths and half-baked policy proposals have become staples of modern campaigns. You betcha!

Until recently, there was a difference between campaigning and governing. Governments are supposed to base their decisions on hard facts and real science. In today’s hyperpoliticized culture, though, the regulatory process can also get hijacked by special-interest groups armed with “narratives” that are simple, emotional and deeply misleading.

California, which is widely known for its progressive politics, should shun governing by scare tactics in defining today’s progressive vision for regulation. As Vice President Al Gore did with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, progressives should grab the pragmatic view that agencies get smart on an issue, develop targeted regulations and use their authority to solve real problems.

California voters back this vision. They recently voted against requiring warnings on genetically modified foods as unwise regulation. The Obama administration has since concluded the fears of GM products are unwarranted. In April, the U.S. trade representative chastised European regulators for allowing “opt-outs” of U.S. imports of GM products as “ignore(ing) science-based safety and environmental determinations.”

Chalk one up for California’s progressive governing.

On the other side of the ledger is California’s decision last month to add bisphenol A, or BPA, to the list of toxicants under Proposition 65. BPA has been used to coat the inside of bottles and cans since the 1960s to keep harmful germs from growing inside them.

Continue reading at The Sacramento Bee.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article24896143.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article24896143.html#storylink=cpy

LeBron James and the Do-Something Democrats: Support for Democrats In the Arena on Trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In this year’s NBA Finals, LeBron James cemented his reputation as one of the greatest basketball players of all time­—becoming the first player in Finals history to lead both teams in points, rebounds, and assists in every game, and averaging an astounding 35.8 points, 13.3 rebounds, and 8.8 assists for the six-game series.

In addition to his basketball prowess, Lebron is also a student of oratory and leadership. When faced with criticism and second-guessing, he’s frequently cited Theodore Roosevelt’s 1910 address on “Citizenship in a Republic,” popularly known as the “Man in the Arena” speech. Like Roosevelt, LeBron believes that:

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds. . . . “

In Washington’s ongoing trade battles, there’s a group of Democratic House Members and Senators who are displaying the type of grit and determination that both TR and LBJ would almost certainly admire. These are the 28 House Democrats and 14 Democratic Senators who’ve voted to advance Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation, often in the face of intense criticism from anti-trade forces.

These Democrats support a forward-looking trade agenda that includes critical priorities for progressives, including strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards, and new rules to protect innovation, to assure open digital commerce, and to “democratize” trade for small business and consumers. As pro-growth Democrats, they understand that increased trade can tap a burgeoning global middle class and help power more inclusive economic growth for middle class Americans.

These Democrats are also realists—and doers. They understand that writing modern rules for liberal trade is a messy and often-thankless task that requires hard work and perseverance. They appreciate that trade is always a negotiation and recognize the need for principled compromise among Congressional colleagues, the Administration, foreign governments, and the many and varied interests that make up America’s economic and social fabric.

While these Democrats know that they won’t achieve everything they seek, they also believe that it is vital to stand with the long line of Democrats—from FDR and Truman to JFK and Bill Clinton—who have progressively built an increasingly effective rules-based trading system that has fostered global peace and prosperity, lifted millions worldwide out of poverty, and continues to deliver substantial benefits to all Americans.

Many Democrats who have opposed TPA say that they support increased trade and stronger trade rules, and that they want to achieve the best deal for America. These TPA critics may be sincere, but they often offer only nebulous ideas on how to achieve these important ends.

Pragmatic, do-something Democrats, on the other hand, recognize the Trade Promotion Authority offers the only realistic, near-term means of achieving the outcomes that so many Democrats claim to want.  They know that our negotiating partners will never table their best and final offers to open markets or raise standards without TPA. And they understand that the United States will never achieve anything meaningful in trade if our trading partners must effectively negotiate with 535 members of Congress. This is especially so after last’s week’s spectacle in which labor and anti-trade groups prevailed on House Democrats to kill worker adjustment assistance—a six-decade Democratic priority—in a cynical bid to scuttle TPA and the overall trade agenda.

Pro-trade Democratic Members understand that key portions of the progressive coalition, including Democrats (58%), millennials (69%), Hispanics (71%), and mayors, believe that trade deals are good for the United States. But they’re not asking Americans to sign a blank check for new agreements. Under the leadership of Senator Ron Wyden, Congressman Ron Kind, and others, they’ve worked hard to assure that TPA includes unprecedented new transparency provisions, including the requirement that the text of any new trade deal be posted on the Internet for months before it is ever brought to a vote.

In a news conference before the NBA Finals, LeBron offered a pithy addendum to his favorite Roosevelt quote. When asked to guarantee a championship, LeBron said that he could only guarantee that “we will play our asses off.”

It’s time for Democrats who say they support expanded trade and progressive rules to get off of the sidelines—and to join the do-something Democrats who are “in the arena” sweating and striving towards those vital goals.

Weinstein on WBUR: Will Three-Year Colleges Make The Grade?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With college costs rising and many students struggling with loan debt, some colleges are offering three-year bachelor’s degree programs to reduce costs and send graduates out into the world a year sooner. PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein, who also directs the M.A. in Public Management program at Johns Hopkins University, tells Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson why he’s a big proponent of three-year degree programs.

Listen to Weinstein’s interview at Here & Now.

The Washington Post: Three of Obama’s biggest fights are about to be decided

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was quoted in The Washington Post regarding the impact of the OECD’s BEPS rules on U.S. jobs and tax revenue:

An international tax agreement could draw companies out of the United States, writes the Progressive Policy Institute’s chief economic strategist, Michael Mandel. “You probably haven’t heard of the BEPS project — but you soon will. Short for Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, the BEPS Project… changes the international tax rules by forcing companies to pay corporate taxes according to the location of the economic activity and value creation generating their profits. … Remember that most European countries already have substantially lower corporate tax rates than the United States does. … Under the proposed BEPS rules, though, the only way for American companies to take advantage of these lower rates in a European country would be to prove to tax authorities that they are engaged in value creation in that country. And the simplest way to show the location of value creation is to move jobs to that country.” The New York Times.

Read the piece in its entirety at The Washington Post.

NEWSMAX: Mandel: Obama’s Support of Global Tax Reform Is Big Loser for US

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was quoted in NEWSMAX regarding the impact of the OECD’s BEPS rules on U.S. jobs and tax revenue:

The Obama administration backs the project to ensure that more corporate tax payments enter the government’s coffers. “But as the project heads for its end-of-year deadline … nobody in Washington is paying attention to a simple fact: the United States lost, and lost big,” Mandel writes in the New York Times.

“BEPS rules will likely not generate more tax revenues for the United States. Instead, they will encourage American companies to quickly move high-paying jobs, such as those of research scientists and software developers, to Europe to take advantage of lower tax rates.”

Without quick corporate tax reform by Congress, BEPS could “turn into an enormous job-and-revenue grab by Europe, and an enormous loss of jobs and revenues by the United States,” Mandel argues.

Read the piece in its entirety at NEWSMAX.