A Grand Bargain on Student Debt?

Yesterday a coalition of eight Senators finally announced a deal on federal student loan interest rates. The compromise, which takes cues from previous proposals from the White House and House Republicans, will peg interest rates on all new federal student loans to the rate on 10-year Treasuries plus a margin. The deal, several months in the works, will retroactively replace the doubling of interest rates that took effect July 1.

Senate Democrats, who had wanted more generous terms for students, are calling the deal more of a grand rip-off than a grand bargain for students pursuing college. Although the deal calls for capping interest rates, they argue that even with the caps borrowers will still pay higher rates than before, especially as the economy improves and interest rates rise. Moreover, according to CBO estimates, the deal will increase federal student loan profits by additional $700 million over the next decade – all on the backs of innocent parents and students.

This deal should be seen as a reasonable compromise.  As I’ve written before, interest rates are only a small part of the actual problem facing student debt. Whether interest rates are 6.8 percent or 8.25 percent (the deal’s new cap for unsubsidized Stafford loans, which most undergraduates get) makes little difference in an economy where half of recent college graduates are underemployed or unemployed, and where real earnings for young college graduates are falling. It does little to address what’s really bloating the amount students owe – ever-rising principal from higher tuition – and it does nothing to address the existing $1.2 trillion mountain of outstanding student loans.

Moreover, it’s not clear pegging long-term student debt to short-term debt borrowing costs, like the federal funds rate or 1-month Treasuries, is the best approach. Such term mismatching – borrowing on short-terms and lending on longer-terms – can be risky, especially for student loans, which are uncollateralized and dependent on future earnings.

If Senate Democrats are unhappy with the deal, they should take the rising burden student debt seriously when they review federal student loan programs for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) later this year. That will be a great opportunity to address one of the biggest issues of our time: helping young people succeed in today’s economy.

Five Key Objectives for a Progressive Broadband Policy

For many progressives, “getting the Internet right” means addressing what they see as undue market power in the provision of broadband and, even more so, the potential for the abuse of that market power, as the Internet is seen as a landmark tool for social and political empowerment. Crafting a progressive broadband agenda that protects consumers and allows for innovation is key to the future of broadband in America.

In my latest report, Shaping the Digital Age: A Progressive Broadband Agenda, I outlined a progressive broadband policy agenda that consists of five key objectives:

  1. We must close the “digital divide” by leveraging all platforms. Given the dispersed populations across the country we should integrate a cloud-based, wireless framework or a mixed system in which signal is taken over wirelines to hubs that serve wireless customers. But the idea that “it must be wired” has been dispelled by the rapid advance of wireless broadband.
  2. We must bring more spectrum—the “airwaves” that “fuel” wireless—to the market to alleviate the spectrum crunch. Greater use of auctions, encouraging spectrum sharing, and looking to the government to give up its unused spectrum are all possibilities.
  3. We must explore “informating” key sectors of the economy. Broadband has the power to transform non-market sectors of the economy such as health, education and the environment. These entities will be driven by more than just market signals, and for that reason, we should look at positive programs to improve their performance.
  4. We must protect personal privacy. Movement within the broadband space invariably creates a trail of data. Progressives must honor rights of privacy in the digital age that and look at the role of transparency and choice in protecting consumers.
  5. We should examine the role of the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC labors under outdated law. While many of its missions—such as public safety—are legitimate, we should realistically evaluate limitations on its ability to deal with the real challenges of the digital age.

The fact that the Internet has become a driving force in shaping daily life doesn’t mean that it can’t be governed primarily by market forces. In fact, those forces have already delivered a competitive, innovative, and rapidly disseminating broadband network. There is a more appropriate policy agenda for progressives that would achieve important progressive goals in a way that “neutrality” and other regulatory forays cannot and will not.

To read the report, please visit https://www.progressivepolicy.org/2013/07/shaping-the-digital-age-a-progressive-broadband-agenda/

PPI Releases New Report on Broadband Policy

New PPI Report by Ev Ehrlich Outlines Progressive Agenda for Broadband Policy

Economic and Consumer –focused Objectives Key to Progressive Broadband Agenda

WASHINGTON – The administration and Congress need to adopt a progressive broadband policy agenda that balances respect for the private investment that has built the nation’s broadband infrastructure with the need to realize the Internet’s full promise as a form of social infrastructure, says a new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

The report, Shaping the Digital Age: A Progressive Broadband Agenda, is authored by Ev Ehrlich, president of ESC Company and former Undersecretary of Commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration and current PPI fellow.

According to Ehrlich, for many progressives, “getting the Internet right” means addressing what they see as undue market power in the provision of broadband and the potential for the abuse of that market power, as the Internet is seen as a landmark tool for social and political empowerment.

Ehrlich’s progressive broadband policy agenda consists of five key objectives:

  • Extending the combined wired/ wireline broadband network to all Americans;
  • Creating an active market for spectrum;
  • Using broadband to advance if not revolutionize key non-market sectors of the economy, particularly education, health care, environmental protection and government;
  • Protecting personal privacy in broadband-based interactions;
  • Defining the role of the FCC as a catalyst, honest broker and market enabler rather than a regulatory implementer

“The fact that the Internet has become a driving force in shaping daily life doesn’t mean that it can’t be governed primarily by market forces. In fact, those forces have already delivered a competitive, innovative, and rapidly disseminating broadband network,” said Ehrlich. “There is a more appropriate policy agenda for progressives that would achieve important progressive goals in a way that “neutrality” and other regulatory forays cannot and will not.”

“Ev Ehrlich is a leading progressive economist and a key architect of the policies that nurtured the Internet’s early development,” said Will Marshall, president PPI. “In this trenchant new analysis, he urges progressives to stop fighting old regulatory battles, and instead champion a forward-looking agenda for ubiquitous, high-speed broadband as a tool for social empowerment as well as economic innovation and growth.”

 

Shaping the Digital Age: A Progressive Broadband Agenda

The broadband Internet is an epochal technology. It is transforming the economy and changing the nature of everyday life. Its construction and development requires large quantities of resources, and its existence generates substantial innovation and economic growth.

What is the public sector’s best policy approach to this burgeoning phenomenon? Views differ across the political spectrum. The conservative vision of policy regarding the Internet is to leave it alone. Progressives find that view wanting, but what is their corresponding vision?

The answer is unclear. To some advocates, it involves an aggressive regulatory stance, whether in the form of “net neutrality,” “common carriage,” limitations on the sale of spectrum, or other policies that limit that latitude and operations of the companies that build and manage broadband networks. The most recent example of this type of advocacy is Susan Crawford’s Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. To others, this agenda seems excessive, but plays to an innate skepticism about large (and older) companies in general–particularly when contrasted to such new corporate Goliaths as Apple, Google, or Facebook, which have made their fortunes by existing on the Internet, rather than by providing it.

What should the progressive agenda be? Are our choices either to embrace this aggressive regulatory agenda or to accede to conservative laissez-faire? This essay argues that there is a third, and far more promising, option for such a progressive broadband policy agenda. It balances respect for the private investment that has built the nation’s broadband infrastructure with the need to realize the Internet’s full promise as a form of social infrastructure and a tool for individual empowerment. It turns away from problems we may reasonably fear but that simply do not exist–most importantly, the idea that the provision of broadband services is dominated by an anti-competitive “duopoly” that stifles the broad dissemination of content. And it forthrightly addresses the new ones–such as the need to create mechanisms to develop broadband as a ubiquitous social asset, to create institutions that do not second-guess its unpredictable and burgeoning growth, and to protect consumer privacy and users’ right to control the use of their personal information.

This paper consists of three sections. The first discusses what progressives should want from the Internet, the second examines the true state of competition in the broadband sector, and the third lays out a progressive agenda.

Download the entire report.

Killing Immigration Reform Hurts the Housing Recovery

It is looking more likely that the comprehensive immigration bill the Senate passed last month will end up stalling in the GOP-controlled House. Although Republican partisans probably don’t realize it, killing immigration reform could do serious collateral damage to the housing recovery.

Most economists believe that bringing 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows would be a boon to the economy, and boost tax revenues in the bargain. It could also put as many as three million legalized immigrants in the market for a home, according to the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals.

The housing market has seen such a sharp and furious rebound in the last year that many experts are now wondering if we are repeating the crazy go–go days of 2007. That’s not likely with rates still at historic lows thanks to the Federal Reserve. We could see some corrections, but nothing like the sickening 30 to 40 percent plunge housing prices took when the bubble burst last time.

One troubling sign, however, is the dearth of first–time homebuyers. In normal times, first–time homebuyers account for about 40 percent of new home sales. In May, that number fell to just 28 percent, down from 36 percent two years ago. The decline was due to cash–heavy investors, a tepid job recovery and tighter credit. That number won’t sustain growth in housing.

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

Rep. DelBene, Policy Experts and Economists to Discuss Need for Progressive-Focused Broadband Policy Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 2012

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

Progressive Policy Institute to host conference featuring Rep. DelBene, Policy Experts and Economists to Discuss Need for Progressive-Focused Broadband Agenda

Panel will examine PPI’s new report by Ev Ehrlich, “Shaping the Digital Age: A Progressive Broadband Agenda”

WASHINGTON – A panel of leading policy experts and economists will meet on Thursday, July 18 to discuss a new PPI report by Everett Ehrlich, which explains why the administration and Congress need to adopt a progressive broadband policy agenda that balances respect for the private investment that has built the nation’s broadband infrastructure with the need to realize the Internet’s full promise as a form of social infrastructure. This public forum will outline five key economic and consumer-focused objectives for a more appropriate policy agenda for progressives.

WHEN:           Thursday, July 18, 2013, 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. EST

WHERE:         B-340 Rayburn House Office Building

WHO:

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Everett Ehrlich, PPI Fellow; President, ESC Company; and former Undersecretary of Commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration

Elliot Maxwell, former Special Advisor for the Digital Economy to U.S. Secretary of Commerce William Daley and U. S. Secretary of Commerce Norm Mineta

Nicol Turner-Lee, President and CEO, National Association for Multi-ethnicity in Communications

ModeratorWill Marshall, President and Founder, Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)

Watch the live webcast: www.progressivepolicy.org

MEDIA COVERAGE:

The event is open to the press. Media in attendance are required to register in advance of the event to Steven Chlapecka at 202.525.3931 orschlapecka@ppionline.org.

The Perils of Non-Intervention in Syria

After two years of escalating violence, the Syrian rebellion looks more and more like a Middle East version of the Spanish Civil War. It has turned into a vicious proxy war that is cleaving the region along sectarian lines and inspiring atrocities on all sides – ironically, the very dangers opponents of U.S. intervention have warned against.

President Barack Obama’s original decision to stand aloof from the Syrian uprising reflected his broader strategy of extricating America from Middle East conflicts. It also mirrored the anti-intervention consensus that has come to dominate U.S. foreign policy debates in the wake of our long and costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But as the death toll rises — and as Iran and Hezbollah go all in for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, provoking a counter-mobilization of Sunni jihadists from across the region — Washington’s hands-off stance has become strategically and morally untenable…

Continue reading at CNN.

The Perils and Promise of Payroll Debit Cards

Last week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman started looking into the controversial new practice of issuing workers debit cards in lieu of paychecks. The practice first came to light last month when an employee of a McDonald’s franchise in Pennsylvania sued over being forced to accept pay in the form of debit cards. Soon after, the New York AG’s office sent inquiries about debit card payroll practices to several companies, along with a request to see a list of fees associated with the cards.

Some of the companies that were contacted by the AG’s office were high profile brands such as Wendy’s, Costco, Darden Restaurants and Walmart. As the list suggests, these are enormous corporations with lots of hourly workers. Instead of a physical paycheck or direct deposit, workers get debit cards they can use to purchase items or access cash via ATMs.

So far so good. But workers soon discovered that such transactions are often laden with income–reducing fees on common transactions such as balance inquiries and even penalties for periods of inactivity…

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

752,000 App Economy jobs on the 5th anniversary of the App Store

In honor of the 5th anniversary of Apple’s App Store, I decided to update my estimates of the number of App Economy jobs. Following the same methodology described in my October 2012 study The Geography of the App Economy (with Judy Scherer),  I find that there are currently 752,000 App Economy jobs in the United States, all created since the first iPhone hit the marketplace.

App Economy jobs are growing at a rapid rate–roughly 40% over the past year, showing the very fast penetration of apps into the very mainstream of the U.S. economy (see the definition of ‘App Economy jobs’ below). These jobs are all over the country–for example, Scottrade, a leading online brokerage, is currently advertising for an Android Mobile Developer to work in St. Louis, Missouri. General Motors is advertising for a Detroit position for someone “certifying apps that get submitted by third party developers and internal teams before publishing the apps to the curated app store hosted by GM.”

Indeed, three-quarter of a million App Economy jobs are nothing to sneeze at, at a time when many industries still have not recovered from the financial crisis. All sorts of employers hire employees with App Economy skills–large and small app developers, large media and software companies who develop apps to sell under their own name, finance and retail companies that use apps to reach their customers, large and small non-tech companies that develop apps for their own use, military and other government agencies that need apps, nonprofits, large companies—including Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft,and RIM—that develop and maintain mobile app ecosystems/platforms, and so on.

One big issue now is whether government regulation will end up squelching the job growth in the App Economy. This could be a particular problem in Europe, if privacy regulations are tightened enough to make ‘free’ apps uneconomic.

Note: These estimates are based on the HWOL database from The Conference Board.  They are preliminary and could change in the future.By my definition, App Economy jobs are:

–An IT-related job that uses App Economy skills—the ability to develop, maintain, or support mobile applications, whether it’s for iOS, Android, or any other mobile operating system or app ecosystem (our methodology picks up all major app ecosystems)

–A non-IT job (such as human resources or marketing) which supports app developers in the same company.

–A job in the local economy that is supported by app developers (we use conservative estimates for the spillover effect).

 

 

Why We Should Relax and Learn to Love Rising Mortgage Rates

Mortgage rates have been scraping the cellar floor in recent years, bottoming out at around 3.5 percent for 30-year loans. Economics 101 says cheap money can’t last forever and, sure enough, goverment backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac reported last week that fixed rates jumped, now up a full percentage point, to 4.5 percent

For the average homebuyer, that’s not trivial. On a $270,000 loan, roughly the national median price of a single family home, it will boost monthly interest payments by around $125 a month. That could be just enough to deter a first-time homebuyer or to eat into the savings of families trying to refinance their homes before rates get any higher.

In housing finance circles, there’s been a lively debate over the recent surge in housing prices: Is the sector’s recovery real – that is, built on market fundamentals? Or are we seeing yet another housing bubble inflated by the Fed’s policy of monetary easing?

Surging interest rates – and all indications are they aren’t going back down – will likely give us the answer by testing the resilience of U.S. housing markets. Here are some key indicators housing experts will be keeping their eyes on:

What happens to credit that many claim is already too tight? The idea that credit is too tight – that capable borrowers can’t get mortgage loans despite low interest rates – is widespread, but is it really true? In fact, the real issue may be bank origination capacity, not credit.

Continue reading at US News and World Report.

Snowden and the pursuit of privacy

Should the Snowden revelations about  domestic and foreign electronic spying by the U.S. government change the debate about business collection of consumer data? In a July 26 speech, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill linked the news of NSA spying with concerns about consumer privacy.   “Americans are now more aware than ever of how much their personal data is free-floating in cyberspace, ripe for any data miner – government or otherwise – to collect, use, package, and sell.”

Commissioner Brill went on to say that “ it took Snowden to make concrete” that “firms or governments or individuals, without our knowledge or consent, and often in surprising ways, may amass private information about us to use in a manner we don’t expect or understand and to which we have not explicitly agreed. “

Yet we must point out that despite the effort of Brill and others to link the two, the sort of data collection undertaken by Internet companies is very different than electronic spying by government agencies.  The former is in most cases a market-based exchange, where personal data is voluntarily supplied by consumers in return for free services. Continue reading “Snowden and the pursuit of privacy”

Get Real on Global Warming

President Obama came to office with ambitious plans to combat global warming and galvanize clean energy development. Then he ran smack into two brick walls: a weak economy and Republican hostility to science.

So Obama last week issued a new “climate action plan” aimed at bypassing GOP obstructionists in Congress, relying instead on regulatory steps the administration can take on its own. Expect conservatives to squawk loudly about “job-killing regulation,” but remember it’s their intransigence that’s ruled out what the country really needs: a market-based approach that uses a carbon tax or cap to allocate the costs of carbon reduction efficiently and drive private investment toward cleaner energy.

The president’s grab bag of things he can do by executive order may be the second-best option, but it’s a whole lot better than nothing. Democrats, however, have blind spots of their own, and one of them is nuclear power. It doesn’t even rate a mention until page 18 of the 21-page plan, where there’s some anodyne language restating Obama’s support for “safe and secure use of nuclear power.” Continue reading “Get Real on Global Warming”

New Fed Data Highlights the “Great Squeeze”

Yesterday’s New York Fed release on recent college graduates concluded that “young college workers have been struggling more in recent years.” The study found that almost half of recent college grads were underemployed in 2012, a figure which has continued to rise since the start of the recession. In fact, last year underemployment of young grads was the highest it’s been since the early 1990’s.

High underemployment for young college grads exactly encompasses what I call the “Great Squeeze.” The continuing disappearance of middle-wage jobs, coupled with a lack of preparedness for today’s high-wage, high-skill jobs, means more educated young people are taking lower skill jobs for less pay. This is squeezing those with less education and experience down and out of the labor force, having a disproportionate effect on the youngest segment of the working population.

To be sure, a college degree is still worth it. In spite of their economic struggles, those with a degree are still more likely to find a job and have higher earnings than those without a college degree.

And not all college graduates are feeling the squeeze. The New York Fed presentation also showed, not surprisingly, that those who studied more technical fields that were in high-growth sectors of the economy are enjoying significantly less underemployment and higher earnings than those in other fields of study.

But that doesn’t negate the clear majority of recent college graduates that are feeling the squeeze. Adding in the share of recent college grads that were unemployed in 2012, and we see a picture where at least half of young college grads were either underemployed or unemployed last year. Student debt, now over $1 trillion and climbing, is exacerbating the problem.

This is not by any means a hopeless scenario, but it does call for action. The slow-growth recovery we are stuck in is not enough to get today’s young graduates back on track to buy a home or save for a secure retirement. Instead we need policies that prioritize investment over consumption, and move us into a high-growth economy. A key part of that is having an educated workforce which is able to realize its full potential.

SCOTUS on Voting Rights: It had to happen sometime

Many liberals are outraged over this week’s Supreme Court decision striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act. They’re accusing the Court’s conservative majority of dissing Martin Luther King, who 50 years ago this summer led the epochal March on Washington; burying the Great Society’s noble quest for racial justice; and, resurrecting the noxious old doctrine of “states’ rights.”

Of course, it’s galling to hear conservatives—who didn’t object much to the systematic violation of black citizens’ Constitutional rights in the bad old days—extol the ruling as a victory for “Constitutionalism” over federal meddling. And Republicans’ undiminished enthusiasm for “Voter ID” and other blatant voter suppression ploys shows that the battle to guarantee full and equal access to the ballot is far from over.

The ruling also makes a mockery of conservatives’ professed reverence for “judicial restraint.” In striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts majority showed exactly zero deference to Congress, which in 2006 renewed the law for another quarter century by a 98-0 vote in the Senate and a 390-33 vote in the House.

Nonetheless, I confess to being torn by the ruling and finding the left’s indignation somewhat hyberbolic. Having grown up in the Jim Crow South, I know that the states covered by the 1965 Act richly deserved to have Washington supervise their voting procedures. Otherwise, they would have continued to use every scurvy trick in the book to prevent black citizens from exercising their right to vote. Continue reading “SCOTUS on Voting Rights: It had to happen sometime”

Senate Finance Committee Will Adopt Approach of “Zero Plan”

According to an article in Politico, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are releasing a letter to their colleagues to inform them that the Committee will adopt the approach of the Simpson-Bowles Commission’s “Zero Plan”.  Under the “Zero Plan,” lawmakers eliminate all individual and corporate tax expenditures and reduce rates accordingly to meet a revenue target. Then, lawmakers must justify which tax preferences, if any, to add back in, keeping in mind that tax rates would have to rise in order to offset any costs. Thus, the Zero Plan provides a “clean slate” from which the creation of a new U.S. tax code begins.

In a 2011 PPI paper entitled “Less is More: The Modified Zero Plan for Tax Reform”, Marc Goldwein and I , former advisers to the Simpson-Bowles Commission, laid out how a Zero Plan approach can simplify the tax code, reduce marginal tax rates, maintain progressivity, and reduce the deficit.

While the Zero Plan has something for everyone to dislike, it also is the only tax reform approach that can appeal to Republicans – who like the rate cuts and the reduced number of brackets –, and Democrats – who want to increase revenues and close loopholes that help wealthier taxpayers game the system.  Senators Baucus and Hatch should be commended for recognizing this and using the Zero Plan as the basis for broad tax reform legislation.

The Great Disrupters of Silicon Valley

Last week, the Pepperdine School of Public Policy gathered an eclectic crew of economists (including your fearless blogger) and high-tech entrepreneurs to discuss tech policy over dinner in Silicon Valley. Among the entrepreneurs were startups like mobile-payment company Ribbon, voice-recognition-software maker Promptu, and mobile-platform provider Appallicious, as well as established players like portable-device maker Lab126 (think Kindle).

These entrepreneurs shared stories about spontaneous collaborations being struck over morning coffee at University Cafe. (Note to joggers: After taking out University Avenue on day one of your trip, make sure to hit the Dish near Stanford on day two.) To succeed here, one needed to tap into this vibe. Unlike the keep-your-head-down mentality of Washingtonians, strangers in the Silicon Valley are inclined to interact based on a common mission to design the next great thing.

After being plied with a local Cabernet (or three), and without any prior warning, the economists were asked a difficult question: What role, if any, does tech policy have in promoting startups like the ones gathered around the table? Continue reading “The Great Disrupters of Silicon Valley”