A Government Takeover of Student Debt Won’t Solve the Problem

If you believe the recent blitz of student debt coverage, private student lenders are to blame for the economic woes of recent college graduates. Lending at what is seen to be excessively high interest rates, the pressure on private lenders to restructure student loans, even at the expense of public funds, is rising. At the same time, the government is taking concrete actions to squeeze private lenders out of the student loan market. Most recently, Senator Elizabeth Warren followed in President Obama’s footsteps by proposing to peg student loan interest rates to the government’s historically low borrowing costs.

Tempting as it may be, attacking private lenders alone will not solve the student debt problem. For one, private student loans are an increasingly small fraction of total outstanding student debt. And while overall student loan defaults have been rising, private student loan defaults have been falling. Second, although not innocent, villainizing private lenders misses the point: outstanding student debt is rising too much too fast. A government-controlled student loan market will not solve the underlying problem that recent college graduates are struggling in today’s slow-growth economy.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Department of Education has essentially taken over the entire student loan market. The federal guarantee program was scrapped, and interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans were “temporarily” cut in half. New government student loans increased 40 percent over 2008-2012 while new private loans fell 75 percent, to just $6 billion last year. The government now holds over 85 percent of the $1 trillion in outstanding student debt. Meanwhile, just three major private lenders remain active in the market. Continue reading “A Government Takeover of Student Debt Won’t Solve the Problem”

PPI Releases New Report on Internet Economy — Internet/tech growth has spread far beyond Silicon Valley

NOTE: The Internet Association will host a press briefing call today on release of PPI’s California Internet Economy Study Results. The call will feature opening remarks by Michael Beckerman, President and CEO of The Internet Association, and a presentation by Dr. Michael Mandel, the chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute. The call will be at Noon PDT / 3:00 p.m. EST and is expected to last approximately 30 minutes. The teleconference will be live and can be accessed by calling 1-877-375-9151 (toll free). The passcode is 72082938, followed by the pound key. Media are encouraged to RSVP to Betsy Barrett betsy@internetassociation.org. Download the policy brief.

WASHINGTON — In California, internet and tech growth is spreading outside the Bay Area to other regions not traditionally associated with the technology and internet industries, accelerating job growth and economic recovery in the state, says a new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

The report, written by PPI’s chief economic strategist Dr. Michael Mandel, highlights recent encouraging signs of job growth in the Internet and tech sector in California that could lift the state out of its economic doldrums, including hard-hit areas such as the Central Valley.

The study examined help-wanted ads across California and found that ads for computer and mathematical occupations in the Central Valley are up by almost 12% over the past year, compared to a smaller 3% gain in the Bay Area. The number of want ads for media and communications workers—many of them related to social media, websites, and other online activities—is up by 34% in Southern California and 42% in the San Diego region. And, demand for web developers is skyrocketing in the Central Valley and Central Coast.

Each of these jobs has the added benefit of creating more jobs in the local economy, from plumbers and janitors to accountants.

The data, notes Mandel, “suggests that the California economy may be approaching a critical inflection point. If the Internet/tech growth continues at its current pace, it may be enough to lift the whole state out of its economic doldrums, including hard-hit areas such as the Central Valley. It also suggests that state government policy should be directed toward encouraging Internet/tech growth, rather than suppressing it.”

Download the policy brief.

The Rebalancing Of The California Economy: How Internet/Tech Jobs Are Spreading Across The State

Over the last year, California has added jobs faster than the country as a whole, in large part because of the booming Internet/tech sector.

Indeed, the latest official figures still show the Bay Area driving California’s economic growth, while the rest of the state lags behind. According to data from California’s Economic Development Department, the number of jobs rose by 2.2% in the Bay Area in the year ended March 2013, compared to 1.5% for Southern California and only 1.2% for the Central Valley, the region that stretches from Redding in the north to Bakersfield in the south.

However, something new and very encouraging is starting to happen: The economic benefits of Internet/tech growth are spreading outside the Bay Area to other regions of California. These gains are so recent that they don’t show up yet in the official government data.

So how do we know Internet/tech growth is spilling over to other areas? To put it simply, we look at the want ads. Internet/tech-related want ads have surged across California. For example, want ads for computer and mathematical occupations in the Central Valley are up by almost 12% over the past year, compared to a smaller 3% gain in the Bay Area. Want ads for media and communications workers—many of them related to social media, websites, and other online activities— are up by 34% in Southern California and 42% in the San Diego region. And want ads for web developers and related occupations are rising in the Central Valley and Central Coast, albeit off a very small base.

What’s more, each of these jobs tends to have a significant multiplier effect on the local economy, creating jobs for everybody from plumbers and janitors to accountants.

This suggests that the California economy may be approaching a critical inflection point. If the Internet/tech growth continues at its current pace, it may be enough to lift the whole state out of its economic doldrums, including hard-hit areas such as the Central Valley. It also suggests that state government policy should be directed toward encouraging Internet/tech growth, rather than suppressing it.

Download the policy brief.

PPI Releases New Report on Regulatory Reform

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2013

PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

Regulatory Improvement Commission Would Drive Growth and Innovation

WASHINGTON—The creation of an independent, Congressionally-authorized Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) is the most effective way to address the build-up of regulations over time affecting businesses, says a new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

The report, Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform, is by PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist Dr. Michael Mandel and PPI economist Diana G. Carew. It was prepared for a conference on “Regulating in the Digital Economy” held in Washington DC on May 9 and sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation.

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and economic growth. President Obama’s approach to regulatory look back has made some headway in clearing the regulatory underbrush but much more needs to be done. No satisfactory process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations.

“The status quo of agency self-review is not, and has never been, an effective way to address old or outdated regulations affecting consumers, as well as small and large businesses,”says one of the report’s authors, Diana G. Carew. “Regulations are important to a well-functioning economy, but a regulatory system that facilitates innovation is a critical part of a high-growth strategy – that means we need to address regulatory accumulation using a different, politically-viable approach.”

That approach, the report argues, is to establish a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) that would be tasked by Congress to review the cost-effectiveness of existing regulations. Modeled after the success of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), the RIC would review regulations as submitted by the public and pass along a recommendation to Congress on a package of 15-20 regulations. Once Congress votes on the package, in an up-or-down vote, the RIC would be dissolved until Congress decides to restart the process.

The RIC would be politically viable even in today’s charged Washington environment. It could independently take on regulatory reform in small pieces with no preconceived agenda, thus building trust over time.

 

 

Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and to economic growth. However, no effective process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations. This paper first puts forward three explanations for how regulatory accumulation itself imposes an economic burden, and how this burden has historically been addressed with little result. We then propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to reduce regulatory accumulation. We conclude by explaining why the RIC is the most effective and politically-viable approach.

A well-functioning regulatory system is an essential part of a high-growth economy. Regulations drive business decisions, such as where to locate production and where to invest in the local workforce. They provide guidelines that keep the air clean, protect consumers, and ensure worker safety. Smart regulations enable the capital markets to function properly, financing the trades, contracts, and insurance that allows businesses to survive and grow.

A successful high-growth strategy requires a regulatory system that balances innovation and growth with consumer well-being. A regulatory structure that is too prescriptive could restrict investment in job-creating innovation if companies are overwhelmed by costly rules, hampering potential economic growth. On the other hand, a regulatory structure that is too relaxed may threaten the environment or unnecessarily place consumers at risk.

A regulatory system that achieves this balance must include a mechanism for addressing regulatory accumulation—what we define as the natural buildup of regulations over time.

Regulatory accumulation is both a process and an outcome of our reactive regulatory structure. Over time regulations naturally accumulate and layer on top of existing rules, resulting in a maze of duplicative and outdated rules companies must comply with.

However, our current regulatory system has no effective process for addressing regulatory accumulation. Every president since Jimmy Carter has mandated self-evaluation by regulatory agencies, but for various reasons this approach has been met with limited success.

In this paper we propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), to be authorized by Congress on an ongoing basis. The RIC will review regulations as submitted by the public and present a recommendation to Congress for an up or down vote. It will have a simple, streamlined process and be completely transparent. Most importantly, it will review regulations en masse in a way that is politically viable.

Download “205.2013-Mandel-Carew_Regulatory-Improvement-Commission_A-Politically-Viable-Approach-to-US-Regulatory-Reform”

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Rating the Credit Raters

Credit rating agencies (CRAs) are supposed to be hard-eyed accountants whose job is to assess credit risk. But they also got swept up in the euphoria that swelled the housing bubble, failing with the Fed and other market participants to predict the extent of the housing crash. That’s partly because they over-extended the use of AAA-ratings, the highest “grade” given to a structured financial product, which falsely indicated low-risk assets.

Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) has introduced an amendment to make credit raters more transparent and accountable. But while this amendment has the right intention, whether it could actually work is another question. Even Sen. Franken himself doesn’t seem all that confident that his measure will work. “I would like to emphasize that we hold no pride in authorship,” Franken said in an e-mailed statement. “We will applaud the implementation of any proposal or set of proposals that ultimately protect consumers and the American public.”[i]

The Franken Amendment essentially calls on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create an oversight board of the rating agencies. The private sector rating agencies and investment firms would have majority representation. The board would oversee a process where a random firm is selected to conduct the initial evaluation of each new financial product that requires a CRA review. Under the proposal, issuers of new securities aren’t allowed to be involved in this part of the process.

But a public-private coordinated oversight board tucked within the SEC is destined for failure. If the pendulum swung too far in one direction prior to 2007, with issuers and most players underestimating risk, this move swings the pendulum right back. A structure like this is confusing to markets and will easily be seen as the federal government granting a guaranteed seal of approval on all ratings.  Even risky debt might be seen as a viable investment inviting dangerous behavior fraught with moral hazard. The market needs to create the appropriate amount of risk, with appropriate public oversight; this proposed set up will
only exacerbate it.
Continue reading “Rating the Credit Raters”

How the FCC Could Shape a Mobile Data-Driven Economy

Tom Wheeler, President Obama’s nominee to be the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has a critical choice to make if he is confirmed by the Senate. The direction he takes with mobile broadband regulation will set the future pace of U.S. growth and innovation. It also will have major implications for government at all levels, on issues ranging from public-safety communications to rural health care to economic development.

If confirmed, Wheeler would come to the FCC at a critical juncture: The agency is at a regulatory fork in the road. For three years in a row, the FCC has been unable to conclude, in its annual mobile competition report, whether or not the mobile phone market is competitive. This is not simply a technical issue. Rather, it highlights an internal debate: The FCC can’t decide what regulatory framework to apply to the mobile broadband market and, by extension, to the entire digital network.

Continue reading at Governing HERE.

How Much Does Student Debt Burden Young People?

According to a new estimate by PPI, Americans under the age of 30 are spending an unprecedented $43.5 billion annually to pay back student loans.

This sum—large and growing—imposes a serious financial burden on young people. By our estimate, $43.5 billion amounts to over 7 percent of the total annual income for people under 30 with education beyond high school (using an average annual income).

Putting this into perspective, in today’s prices, here’s what $43.5 billion could buy:

155,413

New Homes

339,076

Audi R8 Etrons (Iron Man’s ride)

66,923,077

New iPhone 5’s

488,764,045

Tickets to Disney World

22,307,692,308

McDonald’s Happy Meals

Our estimates also show how fast the income burden on young people from student debt is growing. If their outstanding student debt remained at 2004 levels, the income burden would fall from 7 percent to just 4 percent – a $19 billion difference (in constant dollars).

The increasing burden of student debt exacerbates the economic struggles facing young people. Young college graduates have watched their real earnings fall by 15 percent, or $10,000 annually, in the last decade. Those without education beyond high school are being squeezed down and out of the workforce altogether (something we call “The Great Squeeze”).

The examples above illustrate how student debt is affecting young people’s quality of life. But they also show that it’s not only young people that are negatively impacted by rising student debt. The rising burden of student debt on young people also has enormous implications for the entire economy.

Continue reading “How Much Does Student Debt Burden Young People?”

Why You Should Ignore the Housing Experts

Housing is center stage in the news and around the water cooler again, with newspaper and magazine stories dissecting minute fluctuations in home prices and questioning if this is the right time to buy a home or whether Americans should ever own real estate again.

The experts and economists quoted in these pieces are smart thought leaders who do important work that impacts lots of people and places.

But don’t listen to them.

If you are Ms. Smith in Heartland, USA trying to figure out whether to rent or buy, you shouldn’t care what they think.

The thought process on homeownership has veered off track in post-crisis America. People overcomplicate the pros and cons, and try too hard to factor in things they hear on TV or read in news stories like “risk profile,” “cost benefit” and “adjusted for inflation.” “How much will your house be worth in 6 or 7 years, adjusted for inflation?” is a common refrain. (Answer: NO ONE knows).

Forget about all that and go back to the basics: Buy if you can responsibly afford it, if you will be in one place for a while and if you don’t want anyone else to tell you can’t paint the walls burnt orange.

That’s it. That’s the list.

Continue reading at US News & World Report.

Why the Federal Housing Administration Is Better Off Than You Think

Writing for US News & World Report, Jason Gold notes that the Federal Housing Administration is outperforming most analysts expectations.

Normally a small part of the mortgage landscape, the Federal Housing Administration dramatically expanded lending in 2008 when the housing bubble burst and private capital fled.

While progressives hail the FHA’s role as key in blunting steep home price declines and providing much needed liquidity to the market, critics argue that the agency’s intervention was just another bailout that put taxpayers on the hook, and is now discouraging private lenders from coming back.

To be sure, the FHA took serious losses as home values tanked through 2011, and many were quick to focus on an independent audit in 2012 that cited the possibility of a $16.3 billion shortfall if housing conditions deteriorated. But recent estimates suggest the agency’s balance sheet doesn’t look nearly as bad as many analysts expected. President Barack Obama’s new budget, for example, anticipates that FHA will need to borrow less than $1 billion from the Treasury to cover capital shortfalls next year. If home prices keep rising and defaults keep falling this year as expected, even that deficit could evaporate. An improving financial situation would allow FHA to start rebuilding its capital reserves, which have fallen below the congressionally-mandated 2 percent.

Read the piece here.

“Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity

President Obama’s new budget attempts to define a progressive alternative to conservative demands for a politics of austerity. Having just returned from a gathering of center-left parties in Copenhagen, I can report that European progressives are wrestling with the same challenge, and are reaching similar conclusions.

There was wide agreement that the wrong answer is to revert to “borrow and spend” policies that have mired transatlantic economies in debt, while failing to stimulate sustained economic growth. The right answer is a “cut and invest” approach that shifts spending from programs that support consumption now to investments that will make our workers and companies more productive and competitive down the road.

“You can only have a Nordic model if you’re competitive,” declared conference host Helle Thorning-Schmidt, prime minister of Denmark. “In this country, we cannot tax more; it’s that simple,” she added. “If you like the welfare state, if you want to sustain it, you have to take the tough decisions.” Continue reading ““Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity”

Obama Took His Time In Calling Boston Marathon Attack ‘Terrorism’

McClatchy’s Anita Kumar quotes PPI President Will Marshall on the President Obama’s response to the Boston marathon attack:

In his first term, the president was criticized for his responses to several potential incidents of terrorism.

Most notably, he was vacationing in Hawaii in 2009 and waited three days to speak publicly about the attempted bombing of a trans-Atlantic Northwest Airlines flight as it prepared to land in Detroit.

“There’s a suspicion among Republicans that he is only willing to be tough against al Qaida and nobody else,” said Will Marshall, a former Democratic speechwriter who heads the Progressive Policy Institute research center.

Obama, Marshall said, struck the right tone in trying to calm the nation after three people were killed and more than 170 were wounded Monday in two blasts near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

“When there is a crisis we look to the president to be calm, not to be excitable, not boiling over,” he said.

Read the entire article here.

 

America Turns Left On Social Issues, But Not On Government

In his article for McClatchy Newspapers on “Social Issues and Public Opinion”, David Lightman quotes PPI President Will Marshall:

Some saw Barack Obama as a modern-day Franklin Roosevelt, ushering in a 21st century version of New Deal liberalism. Others saw a John F. Kennedy, heralding the dawn of a new progressive age of expanding rights.

America in the age of Obama is something in between, a new landscape for a new century. Liberal on social issues. Solidly in support of the liberal government programs delivered in those earlier times. Yet hamstrung by debt and highly skeptical about expansive government.

“On cultural issues, the direction the country is moving is more progressive,” said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. “But that’s less clear on economic issues.”

Read the rest of Lightman’s piece here.

 

 

President Obama, Republicans Fight the Class War

In his article for Politico on “Class Warfare,” Jonathan Martin quotes PPI president Will Marshall:

Will Marshall, head of the centrist Democratic think tank Progressive Policy Institute, said the GOP would suffer until it made tough decisions on policy in much the same way Democrats did in the 1980s.

“Republicans are at the first stage of the ‘politics of evasion,’ where you pin defeats on everything but your outlook and agenda,” said Marshall, referencing the title of the searing self-indictment penned by a pair of Democratic moderates the year after the party’s third consecutive White House loss in 1988. “It’s always the candidate, the media, the tactics or our people weren’t excited.”

Ayres also found similarities between the GOP’s class problems now and Democrats’ class problems a generation ago.

Read the rest of Martin’s piece here.

The New Politics of Production

It’s easy enough to get progressives to agree that austerity is not the answer to the malaise that pervades the transatlantic world. What’s hard is to forge consensus around a new vision for reviving the west’s economic dynamism. One reason is that the policies necessary to put the United States and Europe back on a high-growth path will disrupt old arrangements and social bargains forged and defended by centre-left parties.

Progressives nonetheless need a new growth narrative, and it must begin with an accurate diagnosis of our core economic dilemma. Many US liberals believe it is weak economic demand, and call for more government spending to stimulate consumption. That’s the standard Keynesian remedy, but it’s insufficient at best because it doesn’t deal with the US economy’s structural weaknesses: lagging investment and innovation; eroding mid-level jobs and stagnant wages; a dearth of workers with technical skills; and, unsustainable budget and trade deficits. None of these problems can be fixed by boosting consumption.

What if progressives made expanding production rather than consumption the organising principle of their economic policy? What if they tackled the imperatives of economic investment, innovation and wealth creation with the same passion they normally reserve for fairness and wealth distribution? Stronger economic growth by itself may not be sufficient to reverse the disturbing rise of economic inequality. But it is the necessary precondition for progressive success in getting people back to work, lifting the middle class, allaying class friction and nativism, and restoring the allure of market democracy.

Here, from an American perspective, are some key steps toward a progressive politics of production:

1. Recognise that slow growth is the fundamental problem

Between 2001 and 2012, the US economy turned in its worst economic performance since before World War II. Annual growth rates averaged just 1.6 per cent (and were lackluster even before the recession and financial crisis hit). The situation in Europe, of course, is far worse: growth in the eurozone was negative (0.4 per cent) last year, and unemployment topped 11 per cent. The transatlantic economies simply aren’t growing fast enough to create jobs for all who need work, finance the social benefits they’ve promised, and sustain their high living standards. They’ve resorted instead to heavy borrowing, and so are mired in a dreary politics of debt and fiscal retrenchment.

2. Shift resources from consumption to investment

More than 40 per cent of the US budget goes to three social insurance programmes: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Automatic, formuladriven spending on health and retirement benefits will double by mid-century as the baby boomers surge into retirement. Such “mandatory” outlays have drastically narrowed Congressional discretion and relentlessly squeezed out domestic spending, now just 14 per cent of the budget and falling. That means less money to modernise America’s ageing infrastructure, plug gaps in our education and worker training systems, and nurture science and technology – not to mention protecting the environment, ensuring public safety and helping people escape poverty. In short, the promises made by politicians long retired or dead are constraining the government’s fiscal flexibility and capacity to grapple with today’s challenges. Instead of imagining that they can evade this dilemma solely by taxing the rich, progressives need to take welfare spending off auto-pilot and shift resources from present consumption to investments that will make our people and businesses more productive in the future.

3. Cut health costs by boosting productivity

Although medical inflation has slowed over the past three years, public health spending is still on a collision course with demographics. Yet many Democrats have dug in their heels against reforms that would “bend down” the health cost curve. This confronts progressives with a Hobson’s Choice: either borrow more to cover the yawning gap between contributions and benefits, or raise taxes on working families. Instead, they ought to trim benefits for affluent retirees, and be open to ways to spur competition among providers to offer higher quality and more efficient care. Over the long term, however, the key to restraining overall US health spending – now 17 per cent of the economy – is raising medical productivity. This will require more technological innovation, not less as many budget analysts assume.

4. Embrace pro-growth tax reform

Given that the rich have reaped the lion’s share of US economic gains, it’s no wonder that progressives want them to pay more in taxes. Rather than focus exclusively on fairness, however they ought to view tax policy as an instrument for spurring productive investment and growth. Since new enterprises contribute disproportionately to net job creation, for example, it makes sense to lower taxes on business start-ups. More broadly, progressives should champion reform of America’s perverse corporate tax code. Its high top rate (35 per cent) leads US companies to shift income abroad, depriving the Treasury of revenue and leaving $1.7 billion in earnings stranded abroad that could otherwise be invested at home. And the code is riddled with loopholes and special breaks that steer companies toward activities that are tax-favoured rather than toward those that can make them more productive and competitive.

5. Enable the “data-driven economy”

Data-driven activities – the production, distribution and use of digital information of all kinds – have become the leading edge of economic innovation and growth in the United States. Since the smart phone was introduced in 2007, the nascent “App” sector has created more than 500,000 jobs. Fueled by major private investment in mobile broadband, mobile commerce doubled in 2012 to $25 billion, about 11 per cent of all e-commerce sales. Europe is also getting a big economic boost from digital commerce. Roberto Masiero of Think!, an innovation-oriented thinktank in Milan, estimates that the Internet economy added almost 500 billion euros to eurozone growth in 2010, equivalent to 4.1 percent of Europe’s GDP. Now “big data” processing and the integration of IT into healthcare, education and energy are poised to spark big gains in productivity – if regulators don’t get in the way. In the United States, for example, regulators persist in applying top-down rules governing telephony to the new medium of broadband communication. And while Europe-wide regulation is a positive step forward, many analysts worry that the EU’s forthcoming data protection regulation could hobble homegrown innovation and disadvantage US companies. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic should work toward harmonising rules that promote more, not less, data-driven trade and that strike a sensible balance between economic innovation and important values like privacy and data security.

6. Don’t give up on manufacturing

While hugely important, the broadband revolution alone won’t deliver the balanced growth and mid-level jobs western societies need to rebuild the middle class. Rather than concede the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs to offshoring, progressives should develop new strategies aimed at “import recapture.” Thanks to a confluence of factors – rising wages in China, the shale gas boom and recognition that advanced manufacturing requires that design and engineering not be separated from production – major US companies are beginning to “onshore” production. Germany and the Nordic countries have shown that high-wage economies can remain competitive in manufacturing by emphasising premium quality, advanced techniques and intensive workforce training regimes. While we shouldn’t expect dramatic leaps in manufacturing employment, even modest increases will have knockoff effects on employment in related activities. Progressives can’t reverse the impact of globalisation, but we can rebalance it in favour of domestic production.

7. Lower state-imposed obstacles to growth

US conservatives never fail to affix the epithet “job killing” before the word “regulation.” This is empirically false and ignores the essential role that regulation plays in making markets work and keeping powerful actors honest. Still, it’s a mistake for progressives to defend regulations as reflexively as conservatives attack them. Between these extremes there is ample room for common-sense efforts to improve the regulatory climate for growth. PPI’s work, for example, has shown that the accumulated weight of old rules imposes large compliance and opportunity costs on firms, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The problem isn’t that governments keep writing new rules, but that they have no mechanism for rescinding old ones. What’s needed are institutional innovations – like PPI’s idea for a “Regulatory Improvement Commission” that would periodically prune or modify old rules. By championing regulatory improvement, progressives would underscore their commitment to growth as well as their resolve to reform, not just expand, the public sector. Omitted from this list are other crucial elements of a progressive highgrowth strategy, including better education and training systems, skills-based immigration reform, tougher trade enforcement and energy innovation. But it illustrates the magnitude of the policy changes required to get America and Europe out of their slow-growth rut. Rapid innovation and growth are disruptive, and these changes will blur old partisan lines and discomfit old political allies. But the payoff – a surge of innovation and production across the transatlantic, and the chance to restore shared prosperity – is surely worth the risk.

This is an excerpt from Progressive Governance: The Politics of Growth, Stability and Reform, a collection of memos published by Policy Network. Download the entire publication here: Will-Marshall-Chapter

Return-free filing proposal is not tax reform

It’s that time of year again – tax time – when Americans are reminded of everything that’s wrong with the federal tax system. It is fiendishly complicated. It is riddled with regressive breaks and loopholes and doesn’t actually raise enough revenue to finance the government. It distorts economic decisions and puts U.S. firms at a disadvantage against foreign competitors who pay lower rates.

What it needs is a comprehensive overhaul. Radically streamlining the tax code is the right way to make our government more user-friendly and to reduce the time and money citizens spend on filing their taxes

Yet every April, like some kind of hardy perennial, a supposed panacea crops up: A return-free filing system. Under this proposal, the same government responsible for creating the byzantine mess that is our tax code will undertake to calculate your taxes for you. No fuss, no muss: you just sit back and let the bureaucrats do all the heavy lifting.

However beguiling that might sound to some, there are at least three big problems with this idea. First, there’s the inherent conflict of interest in having the taxman do your taxes. Second, government has already implemented free solutions for tax return preparation – IRS Free File – that relies on the private sector without costing taxpayers a dime. Third and most important, return-free filing is a procedural trick that promises to reduce the burden of filing taxes without actually doing the hard, but essential work of tax reform. Indeed, return-free can actually hide tax dysfunctionality and inefficiency by making it invisible to citizens, which would work at cross-purposes to the long-term improvements and reform of the tax system that is long overdue.

Continue reading at The Hill.