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.

Why Fannie and Freddie Should Exist in the New Mortgage Market

They may be in federal conservatorship, but a funny thing is happening to the two “troubled” mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: They are making tons of money.

It’s enough to give federal bailouts a good name.

With double-digit home price appreciation and more buyers coming off the sidelines, there have been fewer defaults and more revenues on GSE (government sponsored enterprises) loan guarantees. That’s translated into a handsome $17.2 billion profit in 2012 for Fannie Mae, while its twin, Freddie Mac, posted gains of $11 billion.

With these eye popping numbers, the game has changed. With profits expected to continue and even rise for the foreseeable future, it is now likely that the $180 billion in taxpayer funds used to bail out the GSEs will be paid back in the next few years. It also puts additional pressure on Congress to figure out the government’s future role in housing, specifically as it relates to the GSEs.

But high-level conversations in Washington, D.C. about reforming (or replacing) the GSEs often center around financing challenges for single-family housing, overlooking the crucial role GSEs have played in commercial real estate lending.

Read the entire article here.

The Country, Not the Supreme Court, Will Settle Gay Marriage

In his piece on gay marriage for McClatchy Newspapers, David Lightman quotes PPI president Will Marshall:

Court cases addressing large social issues can reflect trends already under way in society, seen in popular culture and taking hold in the country’s psyche.

The 1954 ruling on desegregation came seven years after Jackie Robinson had integrated baseball. In the years after that, white Americans were exposed to black artists such as Bill Cosby and Diahann Carroll on television. Similarly, gays and lesbians have become more widely accepted in society, in part as more of them reveal their orientation and are embraced by friends and family, and as the culture portrays them as part of the mainstream.

“Social change is organic,” said Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist group. “It takes time for people to accept different concepts and ideas.”

Read Lightman’s whole piece here.

Obama Budget Catching Hell From Both Sides: Why That’s a Good Sign

In his piece for the Daily Beast, John Avlon quotes PPI President Will Marshall,

“In a panicky reaction to President Obama’s budget, some liberal groups are trying to chain Democrats to a Norquist-style pledge to defend the status quo on entitlements,” says Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. “It’s dumber than dumb, but at least it shows the country that Obama is trying to rally the center against the enemies of compromise on both sides.”

Read the entire article here.

Privatizing Law and Order

The gun lobby is shooting sensible gun legislation full of holes. Already, the Senate has dropped a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and Rand Paul is threatening to lead another filibuster, this time against stricter background checks.

As the endgame approaches, it’s important to understand the radical vision that underlies pro-gun absolutism. Forget about the Second Amendment—the gun lobby, abetted by timorous Republicans, is trying to privatize law and order.

Maintaining public order is supposed to be government’s job. The sociologist Max Weber considered a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force to keep order” to be the defining characteristic of a competent state.

The Republican Party exists to elect people to run the government. Where are the Republicans who will stand for the civilized principle that the government, not private vigilantes, should provide basic law and order? Apart from a few honorable exemptions, such as John McCain, they have been intimidated into silence.

In the gun lobby’s dystopic view, Americans can no longer rely on government to keep them safe, so they have to do the job themselves. When everybody is armed and dangerous, the predators among us won’t be able to find any victims. Banning assault weapons and high-capacity clips is tantamount to unilateral disarmament, since it would leave law-abiding citizens outgunned in their confrontation with thugs and criminals.

Continue reading at the Daily Beast.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Natural Gas Vehicles: Driving America to a More Prosperous, Secure and Sustainable Future

There has been a sea change in public attitudes toward natural gas. Not so long ago natural gas was widely viewed as a “bridge fuel” to a future of clean, renewable energy. Now, amid a shale gas boom, many energy analysts regard it as a “foundation fuel” that can power America’s economy in efficient, affordable and environmentally responsible ways for the rest of this century, and possibly beyond.

It is by far the cleanest fossil fuel. Gas produces 50 percent less CO2 than coal2 and 30 percent less CO2 than oil, while also producing significantly less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and harmful particulate matter. The more we burn natural gas in the place of oil or coal the less we put greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Natural gas is also highly efficient. When used directly in America’s homes and businesses, natural gas loses just 8 percent of its useable energy in its journey from the point-of-origin (wellhead) to the point-of-use (burner tip). By contrast, electricity loses approximately 68 percent of its useable energy during the same journey from origin to use.

Thanks to the huge increase in natural gas now being produced from shale rock formations, natural gas is becoming even more abundant. America is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world, with an estimated future supply (reserves plus resources) of approximately 2,170 trillion cubic feet. That’s enough to meet America’s energy needs for more than 85 years. These estimates are based just on current technology. As new production technologies are
developed, this resource base will only grow.

Because natural gas is abundant domestically, it is very affordable. In 2012, oil cost about $15 per MMBtu (million British thermal units) on average, while natural gas cost less than $4 per MMBtu.5 In recent years, natural gas consumers have literally saved millions of dollars on their energy bills. With all of this going for it, more and more American consumers are turning to natural gas for their home heating, water heating, cooking and other energy needs.

Download the entire policy memo.

Forging Consensus on Immigration

The Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform released earlier this year by four Democratic and four Republican senators has been the basis of virtually all the serious discussions about immigration reform going on in Washington these past several weeks. Substantial disagreement has now surfaced over proposed limits on family-based visas as well as over ways to bring in greater numbers of unskilled workers. Yet one topic that may prove to be one of the more nettlesome has thus far received little attention: While the Framework links legalization and eventual naturalization of undocumented immigrants almost entirely to border controls, it neglects what has long been the weakest aspect of immigration enforcement—the workplace. Surprisingly, the Gang of Eight’s many critics have yet to focus on this aspect of their Framework.

Four years ago, as immigration reform fell off the congressional agenda, the Brookings-Duke Immigration Policy Roundtable grappled with precisely these issues. Ours was a deliberative effort involving twenty individuals from the left, right and center—think tank analysts, academics, political and policy entrepreneurs, former government officials, and community leaders—who saw immigration from divergent, even conflicting perspectives. Over the course of a year, we convened regularly and explored our differences in order to determine where we could come together on specific policy proposals. In October 2009 we issued our report, Breaking the Immigration Stalemate. Its findings and recommendations are highly relevant to the Senators’ new push to forge consensus behind comprehensive immigration reform.

When their Bipartisan Framework asserts that “the United States must do a better job of attracting and keeping the world’s best and brightest,” it comes to the same conclusion as did the Brookings-Duke Roundtable—America’s economy demands a policy that supports high-skill immigration. Yet unlike the Senators, we took the next step and considered how to “pay for” those additional newcomers in a political environment where any increase in overall numbers of immigrants meets entrenched resistance. So while the Roundtable called for an additional 150,000 permanent resident visas for skilled workers, we also urged elimination of the controversial Diversity Visa Program, which each year awards 50,000 green cards to the winners of a lottery that the GAO has concluded is vulnerable to fraud.

Download the policy brief.