Category: Uncategorized

Juul in The Hill: Progressives align with DOGE on defense cuts: ‘Let’s play ball’

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Peter Juul, director of national security at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank, said the defense budget should increase given the dangerous state of the world, even though he agreed the Pentagon could be more efficient.

“It’s hard to see where you can do that right at this point, unless you’re [proposing] a massive personnel cuts,” he said. “You might be able to shave the top line a bit, but it’s not going to be this massive savings.”

On Capitol Hill, Juul said there is “more appetite” to “keep things where they are or to push them even further,” calling the hope for defense cuts “wishful thinking by progressives.”

Read more in The Hill.

Canada is the top export market for 36 U.S. states, and Mexico for six.

Posted on by Alex Terr

FACT: Canada is the top export market for 36 U.S. states, and Mexico for six.

THE NUMBERS: Top export markets for U.S. states, 2023 –

Canada 36 – listed below*
Mexico   6 – Arizona, California, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas
China   3 – Alaska, Louisiana, Washington
United Kingdom   2 – Utah and D.C.
Netherlands   1 – Puerto Rico
Japan   1 – Hawaii
Belgium   1 – Massachusetts

* Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Some strange pre-Thanksgiving belligerence against Mexico/Canada/China: Mr. Trump threatens via social media to break up the 2019 “U.S.-Mexico-Canada” agreement by imposing 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods over migration and drug issues, with China thrown in as well.  (For reference, here’s the text of USMCA’s core commitment from Article 2.4: “[N]o Party shall increase any customs duty, or adopt any new customs duty, on an originating good.”)  It’s not clear how seriously to take this – see below for some likely national impacts and personal adjustments – but here’s some background:

Data: Canada and Mexico buy about a third of all American exported goods. Canada is the top export market for 36 U.S. states and Mexico for another six, including the four border states Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. By one measure, New Mexico is most reliant of all states on Mexican customers, who buy $3.5 billion — 70% — of their $5 billion in total overseas sales.  By another, it’s Texas, whose massive $130 billion in exports to Mexico is 5% of state GDP, even before adding the $36 billion in Texan sales to Canada.  North Dakota meanwhile relies most heavily on Canada – 82% of $8.8 billion in worldwide exports of wheat, oil, farm machinery, etc. — with Maine, Michigan, and West Virginia all around 50%. To give the overall picture, U.S. export data in 2023 looked like this:

U.S. Export Sector To World To Canada/Mexico Canada/Mexico share 
All goods $2.018 trillion $678 billion 33.6%
Manufacturing $1.601 trillion $594 billion 37.5%
Agriculture    $174 billion   $56 billion 32.2%
Energy & metal ores    $351 billion   $81 billion 23.1%

A big tariff on incoming goods from Canada and Mexico would have three basic effects.  The most direct would be higher U.S. prices, especially in the energy, car, appliance, and food industries that make up the largest share of North American trade.  Mexico, for example, is the U.S.’ largest source of winter vegetables and fruit, supplying grocery stores this past February with 188,640 tons of tomatoes, 128,330 tons of peppers, 106,460 tons of avocadoes, 44,440 tons of lemons and limes, and other fresh produced valued at $2.25 billion — along with TV sets, cars, and home appliances, plus more cars, the largest single stream of energy imports, beef, cooking oil, and beer from Canada.  The second and third effects are less direct but predictable: American exporting factories, labs, farms, ranches, and mines with Canadian and Mexican customers would (a) risk retaliation in kind, and (b) lose customers as Mexican and Canadian firms reliant on U.S. goods go bankrupt or lose out to competitors elsewhere in the world.  Some illustrative examples:

Energy and Price Increases: Energy is the largest single import from Mexico and Canada.  In 2023, American refineries and power plants bought $145 billion worth of crude and refined oil, gas, and electric power from the two countries. This was about 60% of all U.S. energy imports. ($122 billion from Canada, $23 billion from Mexico.)  A 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian energy adds a face value of $36 billion. Some might be replaced over the course of 2025 by Persian Gulf oil at market prices; on the other hand, the tariff itself might raise world market prices.

Export Losses (1) – Agriculture and Retaliation: When one country imposes tariffs on another’s goods, particularly in violation of an existing agreement, the offended country frequently retaliates by doing the same thing. The 2018/19 bout of tariffs on steel and most Chinese-made goods brought retaliatory tariffs against U.S. goods in China, the European Union, India, Turkey, and several other countries. Some U.S. firms responded by moving overseas to dodge the hit; Harley-Davidson, for example, moved some of its bike production from Milwaukee to India to avoid the EU tariffs. Others didn’t have that option.  Farmers, unable to move production and then as now selling lots of products to China, took a heavier blow, leading the first Trump administration to institute a $20 billion annual reparations program for their lost income. Canada and Mexico now buy a third of all U.S. farm exports, and adding China in brings the total to half of last year’s $174.2 billion ag export total, putting about 10% of all U.S. farm income at risk.

Export Losses (2) – New Mexico Manufacturing and Customer Loss: Retaliation, though, wouldn’t be the only harm to come from the breakup of USMCA.  Lots of American exports to Canada and Mexico — hundreds of billions of dollars worth of them, mainly in sophisticated manufacturing — go not to Canadian and Mexican homes and consumers but to industrial buyers.  For example, New Mexico’s $3.5 billion in exports to Mexico includes $1.7 billion in computer parts, $230 million in magnetic and optical media, $290 million in electrical components, and $190 million in semiconductor chips — that is, high-tech inputs bought by Mexican auto plants and factories assembling refrigerators, computers, and other appliances, and consumer electronics. Imposing a high 25% tariff on the resulting cars and TVs as they flow back to the U.S. will naturally cut sales and, therefore, reduce not only the makers’ production and job counts but those of their suppliers in Las Cruces, Albuquerque, and the just-opened Rio Rancho semiconductor fab.

New Mexico’s risks, though probably particularly high, are typical rather than unusual. How much of North Dakota’s $580 million in farming machinery exports to Canada would survive? Ohio’s $21.8 billion in exports to Canada, with its $5 billion worth of metals and auto parts destined for Ontario and Quebec auto plants? What fraction of Texas’ $10.8 billion in semiconductor chips, $5.1 billion in electrical equipment, and $7.0 billion in auto parts to Mexico?

To sum up: Among big powers, the U.S. is unusually fortunate in having friendly and peaceful relationships with its two large neighbors.  These involve deep and complex economic ties, which often raise policy problems and challenges but, in general, serve all three countries well.  Replacement of the earlier North American Free Trade Agreement with the “USMCA” in 2020 has had mixed results — some useful innovations, also some things that seem to be working less well and may have been over-negotiated. If the agreement is still there next year, its scheduled review in 2026 might help fix some of the problems. Abandoning it to provoke an economic shock and pick fights with neighbors and allies, though, is much more likely to inflame than ease border problems – and generally seems unsound and a bad idea. Again, it isn’t clear how serious this really was.  But just in case, and moving from unwise national policy to its possible personal impacts: make the down-payment this month if you’re buying a car or refrigerator, and with heating and gas as well as food prices maybe about to jump, take some time in mid-January to fill your tank and stock up on groceries.

FURTHER READING

“USMCA” text (see Chapter 2 on “National Treatment and Market Access for Goods,” Article 2.4, for tariff policy).

… State-by-state perspective from the Canadian Embassy.

… The Mexican Embassy’s USMCA page.

… and from the U.S. Department of Commerce, interactive U.S. state export figures for all countries, the world, and 323 “NAICS-4” products from oil seeds and grain at 1111 to “miscellaneous manufacturing” at 3999.

PPI looks at U.S./Canada/Mexico auto trade four years after USMCA and wonders whether the renegotiation of NAFTA tried to do a little too much in this area.

The Energy Information Administration’s snapshot of U.S.-Mexico energy trade.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Ainsley for The Power Test Podcast: Can you feel it? Labour’s big task

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Recorded live at the Centre for Progressive Policy’s Inclusive Growth Conference on 28th November, this special episode The Power Test looks at where we are six months into the new Labour government and what it needs to do to deliver its promise of a decade of national renewal.

Following the Budget, the reelection of Donald Trump in the US, farmer protests, and a rumoured government ‘relaunch’, Sam and Ayesha, together with Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, CPP’s Director of Place and Practice Annabel Smith, and Power Test regular and Director of the Project on Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute Claire Ainsley, look at what Labour needs to do to deliver, restore trust in politics and survive.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: The Least Terrible Way for Ukraine to Negotiate with Russia

Posted on by Alex Terr

Many Ukrainians, used to making the best of bad situations, reacted to Donald Trump’s reelection with caustic humor. Among the most heard jokes play off his promise to end the war with Russia in 24 hours. “Has everyone set their timers?” one man asked on Facebook. But underneath the repartee, Ukrainians are tired—ground down by a war, now all but stalemated, that will soon enter its fourth year. So they wait, half-frightened, half-hopeful, for what could be a disastrous defeat or a welcome reprieve.

Few here doubt that Trump’s team will push for negotiations, requiring compromises from both sides but sacrifices mostly from Ukrainians. Morally, this is monstrous. Ukrainians are guilty of nothing but building their country, growing its economy, and yearning for an independent, democratic future. The Kremlin’s crimes, in contrast, are unending. They include the unlawful annexation of Crimea in 2014, a ten-year proxy war in eastern Ukraine, the unprovoked 2022 invasion, the kidnapping of some 20,000 Ukrainian children, and nearly three years of deadly missile strikes on schools, hospitals, and civilian targets in cities across a country of 40 million, to name just a few.

The world’s leading champion of might-makes-right, Vladimir Putin, flouts international norms and sides unashamedly with America’s enemies, from Iran to North Korea. Yet, under Trump, Kyiv and Moscow will now be treated as moral equivalents, two equal parties across a negotiating table, each expected to give a little to get a deal.

But indignation and outrage will do little to help Ukraine in the months ahead as the two sides jockey and the Trump team fine-tunes its approach. Even as the grim game plays out, some outcomes would be better than others—a relatively good peace versus an unspeakable, debilitating deal.

Read more in Washington Monthly

Manno for Forbes: Four Job-Launch Pain Points In Young People’s Career Journey

Posted on by Alex Terr

Preparing for a career and entering the workforce are more challenging tasks than ever for young people. They must navigate four job-launch pain points that involve career exposure, career aspirations, career skills, and career experience. These pain points are the result of a fundamental disconnect young people experience between the career preparation K-12 schools offer them and the career preparation they want from K-12 schools.

K-12 school systems can fix this problem by putting in place a systematic approach to career education and career development for students. As National Career Development Month comes to a close, let’s examine these job-launch pain points and suggest a solution.

Read more in Forbes. 

Kahlenberg for The Hill: To win the working class, Democrats should champion patriotic education

Posted on by Alex Terr

Democrats face two enormous challenges in light of their disastrous 2024 election showing. The first is to defend democracy as President-elect Donald Trump, the most authoritarian figure ever elected president, takes power with a much broader mandate than in his first term.  The second is to restore the faith of working-class voters in a party that has utterly lost touch with them.

Normally, these two priorities are viewed as contradictory. After all, working people by necessity focus on kitchen table economic concerns.

But Democrats can take one important step that would simultaneously move them to the center culturally and affirm democratic norms:  create a robust program of “liberal patriotic education” that would merge a love of country with a recognition that the U.S. still needs to do much more to widen opportunity to those left behind.

Read more in The Hill.  

American family spending on food is down by 28% as a share of family budgets since 2000.

Posted on by Max Sherrill

FACT: American family spending on food is down by 28% as a share of family budgets since 2000.

THE NUMBERS: Food share of annual American family spending* –

Year Food share of annual American family spending
2023   9.8%
2000 13.6%
1973 19.1%
1950 26.7%
1918 38.3%
* Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Governor Bradford remembers the first Thanksgiving in 1621:

“They [the fifty Pilgrims who had survived the first winter] begane now to gather in ye small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health & strenght, and had all things in good plenty; fFor as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All ye somer ther was no want. And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids, they had about a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corn to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports.”

Bradford’s Pilgrims and their “some ninety” Wampanoag guests relied on the autumn fish, berries, birds, vegetables, corn, and game of early New England. Tomorrow’s Thanksgiving celebrants can pick from the same options: 21st-century New England has 30,700 farms on 3.75 million acres of land.  They sell $3.2 billion worth of produce annually, with Massachusetts bogs topping the U.S. in cranberries, Maine leading for blueberries and lobster, and Vermont for maple sugar. Native Americans likewise operate 56,000 farms and ranches (mostly in the West), producing $2.4 billion in crops and $6 billion in livestock each year. More broadly, American Thanksgivings draw in food from 1.9 million American farms and ranches, and more from the world beyond. The turkey and cranberry sauce are still mostly American birds and berries – Minnesota and North Carolina are the largest turkey-breeders – but they often find complements in Australian and Argentine beef, Thai and Ecuadoran shrimp, Irish and New Zealand butter, Mexican cilantro and avocado, South African wines and oranges, Canadian wheat and beer, Chilean berries and Peruvian vegetables, Sri Lankan tea and Colombian coffee, and West African chocolate. A bit of background to this:

Food-buying and spending: The World Trade Organization’s World Trade Statistics 2023 finds the U.S. the second-largest buyer of agricultural goods at $241 billion last year, behind China’s $285 billion and a bit above the EU’s $213 billion. (The U.K. and Japan are next at $86 billion and $84 billion.) This dazzling array of stuff looks pricy, but in a more realistic sense, it’s gotten steadily cheaper. As food-buying has “globalized,” as tariffs have fallen, and as shipping and cold-chain storage techniques have improved, Americans have spent steadily less of their money on food. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey, for example, reports that 9.8% of American family budgets now go to food — a drop of 28% since 2000, of half since the 1970s, and three-quarters over the last century.

Production and exports: And what about the producers? The 1.9 million U.S. farms and ranches top the WTO’s list of exporters with $198 billion in overseas sales last year – 1.2 billion from New England – and typically get a fifth of their income from foreign customers.  USDA’s database reports that U.S. farms and ranches annually ship out 190 million tons of food — soybeans, and wheat for Asian noodle shops, fresh vegetables for Latin America, corn for Mexican bakeries, beef and pork for the world, and 500 million pounds of turkey.  Here’s USDA’s businesslike 21st-century counterpoint to Governor Bradford:

“With U.S. agricultural output growing faster than domestic demand for many products, U.S. farmers and agricultural firms have been relying on export markets to sustain prices and revenues. As a result, U.S. agricultural exports have grown steadily over the past 25 years—reaching $174 billion in 2023, up from $57.3 billion in 1998.  The product composition of agricultural exports shifted over that 25-year span, reflecting changes in global supply and demand. Most notably, exports of consumer-oriented products—including high-value products (HVP) such as dairy products, meats, fruits, and vegetables—showed strong growth driven by increasing population and income worldwide, as well as a growing diversification of diet.”

So, with families spending less of their income on food, farmers shipping more high-value stuff abroad, and lots on the table tomorrow, we have much to be grateful for this week. We wish readers and friends a happy Thanksgiving Day.

FURTHER READING

Then & now:

Plymouth’s Pilgrim Hall Museum has the two surviving records of the first Thanksgiving, with Governor Bradford on food and Edward Winslow on Massasoit and his warriors.

The heirs of Massasoit at the Mashpee/Taunton Wampanoag Nation.

Native agriculture today:

Per USDA, 78,316 Native American producers operate 56,000 farms and ranches on 52.6 million acres of land, with $2.8 billion worth of crops and $3.4 billion in livestock annually.  The largest output is in Oklahoma and Arizona. Native American farmers are slightly younger than the average U.S. farm owner — 11% are 35 or younger and 34% over 65, as opposed to 9% below 35 and 38% above 65 for U.S. farmers in general — and are more likely to use farming as the main source of family income. A somewhat larger share of Native farm owners are women. USDA on 21st-century Native farm and ranch life.

The Inter-tribal Agricultural Council, based in Billings, Montana, promotes tribal farm and fishery exports.

And for DC residents and visitors, Mitsitam Café at the Museum of the American Indian has menus and material, as well as meals, on contemporary Native American farming and products.

Family spending on food:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey reports spending patterns by family type, income level, race and ethnicity, and more for 2023.

… and looks back over the Survey’s 130 years with figures on incomes and spending for 1901, 1918, 1934-1936, 1950, 1960, 1972-73, 1984-1985, and 1996-1997:

The Department of Agriculture looks at American farming and ag trade –

The Census of Agriculture 2022, released last February.

… a stat-snapshot of 21st-century New England farming, from berries and maple syrup to mink.

… a look at American agricultural trade and its place in farming and the rural economy.

… and the “Global Agricultural Trade System” database.

And world perspective:

The WTO’s World Trade Statistics 2024; see Tables 13 and 14 for food and ag trade export and import leaders. A quick table of top exporters:

World agricultural exports $2,276 billion
European Union:    $268 billion
U.S.    $198 billion
Brazil    $157 billion
China      $95 billion
Canada      $88 billion
Indonesia      $59 billion
Thailand      $56 billion
Australia      $50 billion
All other $1,305 billion

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Juul on Medium: The Senate Should Reject These Two Dangerous Nominations

Posted on by Max Sherrill

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated a pair of unqualified and unacceptable individuals to fill two critical national security posts in his upcoming administration: Fox News personality Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Neither nominee possesses any experience managing organizations the size, scope, and scale of the Defense Department or America’s intelligence community. Both hold extreme views that ought to disqualify them from holding any senior national security position, much less ones with the duties and responsibilities they have been nominated for.

The Senate must exercise its Constitutional responsibility of advice and consent to reject these two presidential nominees. If confirmed, both Hegseth and Gabbard would do grave harm to American national security — primarily via the damage they would inflict on the institutions they have been nominated to lead.

Keep reading in Medium.

Missing the Mark: How the DOJ’s Google Antitrust Remedies Fail Consumers and the Economy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The remedies proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Google antitrust case, released on November 19, are a stunning example of prosecutorial overreach. DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter and his team went far beyond Judge Mehta’s findings, proposing to break up one of America’s most successful, innovative, and consumer-friendly companies.  

Indeed, the DOJ’s proposed remedies serve as an ironic post-election punctuation mark, emphasizing how the Biden Administration poured vast amounts of resources and attention into a case against Google that working Americans simply didn’t care about. Voters rightfully complained about the high price of food and homes, and voted that way. Tech firms were not on their list of major policy concerns, especially since tech was a low-inflation sector of the economy. 

Moreover, PPI’s analysis shows that rather than Google suppressing growth, the tech sector has been a powerful source of jobs during the pandemic and after. Since 2019, domestic tech employment has risen by some 700,000 workers, spread around the country, including significant job gains in states such as Colorado, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  

Antitrust policy is not a popularity contest, of course. But if there’s one thing that the election teaches us, it’s that government actions have to serve the needs of ordinary consumers. And by that measuring stick, many of the proposed remedies from the DOJ fail miserably. 

For example, the DOJ would force Google to provide vast amounts of user and search data at a minimal cost to “rivals and potential rivals” — that is, anybody who asked — creating inevitable data security and privacy nightmares. No sane consumer would support a “remedy” that increases the exposure of their data. 

The DOJ would also require Google to divest Chrome and hobble Android in ways that would make these popular products less useful to consumers. These changes would be a disaster for ordinary users. 

DOJ’s ambitious and expansive remedy proposals serve as an illustration of how the Biden Administration missed the boat politically and economically. 

Jacoby for Forbes: With Trump In The Wings, Can Europe Agree To Cooperate On Defense?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Andrius Kubilius drew back the curtain about an hour into his November 6 confirmation hearing as the European Union’s first-ever commissioner for defense and space. A former prime minister of Lithuania and long-time member of the European Parliament, Kubilius told a story about a recent war game simulating a Russian attack on his home country.

The alarming finding of the exercise: Lithuania would be overrun—defeated by the Russians and occupied—well before NATO forces arrived, probably about 10 days later. Lithuania estimates that preparing for such an assault would require it to double its defense spending from nearly 3% of GDP, already higher than all but four European countries, to 6%. (The U.S. spends 3.4%, according to NATO.) “How shall we do it?” a somber Kubilius asked his fellow parliamentarians. “How much the European Union can help us? That is the question to which we need to find an answer together.”

Some 1,000 days after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, with President-elect Donald Trump threatening to end the fighting on terms that many believe will be favorable to Moscow, Europeans are increasingly worried that war is coming to their doorstep. The past year has seen a sharp escalation of sabotage that European intelligence services attribute to Moscow: arson attacks on a Warsaw shopping mall, a German weapons factory and a Ukrainian-owned logistics firm in London, plus a foiled plot to sabotage a military installation in Germany and a conspiracy to assassinate the CEO of a German arms manufacturer, among other illegal acts. And German intelligence has predicted that Russia could be ready for an armed attack on NATO by the end of the decade.

Keep reading in Forbes.

New PPI Research Reveals Clear Message for Democrats: Change the Party or Lose Again

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The 2024 election sent shockwaves through American politics, marking a stunning comeback for Donald Trump and delivering a sobering verdict on the Democratic Party’s current trajectory. Despite heavily outspending her opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris suffered a resounding defeat, failing to carry a single battleground state or recreate the anti-Trump coalition of 2020.

New research from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) reveals the underlying problem: Democrats have lost their connection with working-class Americans, who now overwhelmingly view the party as weak, out of touch, and ideologically extreme. To regain their footing, Democrats must urgently rebrand and rebuild their coalition — or risk ceding the political map to Republicans for years to come.

New polling and focus groups conducted for PPI by Deborah Mattinson, former Director of Strategy for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and YouGov reveal a sobering reality. Blue-collar voters now view the Democratic Party as weak, unpatriotic, incompetent, and out of touch, while seeing Republicans as stronger, more patriotic, and increasingly aligned with their concerns. Republicans hold double-digit leads across key metrics. Among working-class voters:

  • 31-point lead on being perceived as “strong”
  • 19-point lead on being seen as “patriotic”
  • 18-point lead on competence and being “in touch”
  • 14-point lead on being “on my side”
% Seeing Democrats % Seeing Republicans Republican Lead (Points)
“Strong” 32 63 31
“Patriotic” 43 62 19
“Competent” 38 56 18
“In Touch” 34 52 18
“On My Side” 36 50 14

 

In focus groups, former Democratic voters who backed Trump this year likened the president-elect to a “neat whiskey. He’s strong and gives it to you straight,” while comparing Democrats to a “watered-down cocktail. Weak.”

 

“Working class voters rendered a harsh verdict on Democrats on November 6,” said Will Marshall, PPI President. “They see the party as weak, unpatriotic and out of touch with their everyday economic struggles and values. Democrats need a major course correction, because they can’t build a center-left majority without reconnecting with the working families that once were the backbone of their party. “

 

The polling also revealed troubling perceptions of extremism:

  • 65% of voters believe Donald Trump can “stand up to extreme members of his party,” compared to only 40% who say the same of Kamala Harris.
  • 58% believe Democrats have moved “too far left,” compared to 47% who think Republicans have moved “too far right.”

 

PPI will continue to engage with party leaders, strategists, and policymakers to advance a vision that reconnects Democrats with the working-class voters who have been the backbone of the party for generations.

 

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org 

Marshall for The Hill: Who Will Turn the Democrats Around?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Donald Trump’s sweeping presidential victory this month proved that his 2016 win was no fluke.  Like his populist-right counterparts in Europe, Trump is riding a working-class revolt against governing elites — a spreading brushfire the Biden-Harris administration failed to comprehend and effectively counter.

After losing the national popular vote in his two previous White House runs, Trump won it this time by about 2.5 million votes this time and is right on the borderline between winning an outright majority and a plurality. He made inroads in blue cities, suburbs and states while scoring substantial gains among independents and traditionally Democratic-leaning groups: young voters as well as Black and especially Latino voters without college degrees.

This convergence in the voting behavior of the white and non-white working class punctures the progressive myth that “voters of color” think and vote alike along reliably Democratic lines. Class, now defined chiefly by education level, appears to be eclipsing ethnicity as the nation’s deepest political fault line.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Ushering in a New Apprenticeship Decade

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The time has come again for National Apprenticeship Week (NAW). Ten years in the making, NAW is the week-long recognition of the necessity for and value of apprenticeship in America, by partners and providers alike. Taking the time to nationally celebrate apprenticeship just makes sense. Apprenticeships are invaluable earn-and-learn tools with the potential to better build the American workforce pipeline. 

Apprenticeship is a win-win for everyone. It can improve and increase access to quality jobs for the working class, with the potential to expand the middle class for those historically left behind in the American economy. It is also a way for individuals to get paid while they earn a living. For employers, the apprenticeship model also provides more tangible opportunities to readily source the talent they need to fill critical job shortages and remain competitive in the marketplace.  

This year’s celebratory theme is “10 Years of Engagement, Expansion, and Innovation”. Though policymakers have tried to take work-based learning more seriously in recent years, the fruits of their labors pale in comparison to America’s international peers, like Great Britain, Germany, and Australia. Our country still sits around 600,000 registered apprentices. What’s more, these apprentices are mostly nestled in their traditional homes of the building trades and heavy industry, while our international peers have roughly 10 times more opportunities in their marketplaces. 

The past 10 years of apprenticeship upscaling efforts have been scant. By not prioritizing funding and scaling this earn-and-learn model, we are undermining the working class’s ability to access important career opportunities and pathways to quality jobs, alike. If the 2024 election results send one major message to policymakers, it is the need to focus on creating viable working opportunities for those who feel like they are being left behind in our global economy. Apprenticeship does just that. 

PPI calls for a more serious national commitment to scaling the apprenticeship model as we look toward the next 10 years. In the spirit of continuing with this year’s NAW theme of engagement, expansion, and innovation, PPI highlights three policy proposals to best usher in a new decade of apprenticeship in our country. 

The first is cross-sector engagement. Engagement across different sectors of the economy is vital to an effective scaling apprenticeship in America. By more diligently bringing together nonprofit organizations, the private sector, and the public sector to engage more in the apprenticeship scaling process and by recruiting intermediaries (who play a key role), we can launch apprenticeship into more industries across the economy to provide more opportunities to the working class. 

The second is expanding the number of apprentices in the U.S. PPI believes that the U.S. needs to expand the number of our nation’s apprentices roughly tenfold. Most Americans do not have a four-year degree, and the four-year college model is falling out of style due to the bloated price tag, low completion rates, and the weighty debt burden that often follows it. A recent PPI poll, which surveyed ~5,000 workers without four-year degrees, definitively reflected this public sentiment, citing that 74% of workers believe that public investment in apprenticeship and other career pathways that help individuals acquire better skills is the most likely way to help workers get ahead in today’s economy. 

Finally, PPI encourages innovative policy proposals brought forth by cross-industry partners to look at ways to best reduce barriers to entry for employers and increase the number of apprentices in the U.S. Another recent PPI report, “Strengthening America’s Workforce: The Path to 4 Million Apprenticeships”, offers a refreshed perspective on Apprenticeship for America’s pay-per-apprenticeship proposal. In this proposal, one million apprenticeships a year are created via increasing federal investment, tying funding to performance, shifting from lottery-style grants to formula funding, and for all types of intermediaries to better sell employers on apprenticeship and assist them as they are in the organizational stages of programs. 

Slight shifts towards making America an apprentice nation over the past 10 years may have left the marketplace wanting, but there is no reason to dwell on the past when there are viable policy solutions aimed at effectively scaling the U.S. apprenticeship model. Ditching ineffectual and unpopular policies — like “college for all” and student loan forgiveness — that distract from policy proposals with the actual ability to expand the middle class is critical. With this sort of pragmatic and diligent prioritization in apprenticeship, the U.S. can follow in the footsteps of the great apprentice nations, increasing economic competitiveness. If we deliver on this, we can usher in a new decade of apprenticeship that will truly be worth celebrating. 

Manno for American Compass: Addressing the College Credibility Crisis

Posted on by Alex Terr

Skepticism about higher education has reached a fever pitch in the United States, to the point that ‘College is a scam’ is a popular meme on TikTok and YouTube,” writes Nicole LaPorte in Town & Country.

This fever pitch reflects the fact that many Americans, including young people and employers, no longer believe a college degree is the best pathway to a good job and adult success. A Wall Street Journal/NORC survey found that more than half of Americans (56%) believe a college degree is not worth the cost. Such views are strongest among those aged 18-to-34, as well as college graduates themselves.

Americans want other education and training pathways to prepare young people for the world beyond high school. One important—and underappreciated—avenue is apprenticeships, which typically integrate paid, on-the-job training with formal classroom instruction, a learn-and-earn approach that provides both school and workplace experience. As National Apprenticeship Week, a celebration of the value and importance of these types of opportunities, draws to a close, policymakers and other education and training stakeholders should re-double efforts to expand this approach.

Read more in American Compass

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: The Authorizer: What Donors Should Know About Evaluating Charter Schools

Posted on by Alex Terr

Over the past few decades, donors have poured millions of dollars into improving K-12 schooling by creating a new sector of public charter schools of choice that are accountable for results. One analysis calculates that 11,827 foundations have provided financial support to nonprofits in the charter schools category—money given not just through traditional grants but through program-related investments and social impact funds.

These donors—and charter supporters in general—have often been derided for their efforts. So has it been worth all the hassle and wrath directed at them? In short, yes. (Last week, I summarized research studies that show the salutary effect charter schools have on closing the achievement gap, reducing inequality between richer and poor students, and lifting the performance of entire school districts.) As economists Douglas Harris and Feng Chen write, “Charter school laws have been arguably the most influential school reform efforts of the past several decades.”

Since the first law creating these schools was passed in 1991, we’ve learned much about their positive impact on students, the traditional K-12 system, and the communities where they exist. I would summarize the three most important lessons like this:

  1. Charter schools reduce academic inequality by closing student achievement gaps.
  2. Charter schools raise the overall quality of public schools.
  3. Because they improve the quality of K-12 public schools, creating more charter schools reduces inequality in America.

These three lessons create what I call the virtuous improvement cycle of charter schools.

Read more in Philanthropy Daily. 

Weinstein Jr. for Forbes: Why Home Prices Remain Too High.

Posted on by Max Sherrill

One of the key messages voters sent on Election Day 2024 is they are fed up with high prices — and at the top of that list is the cost of owning a home.

For Americans, housing is their single biggest expense, and today, it is less affordable than at any time in the last 40 years. the beginning of 2020, the median cost of a home was around $280,000, today that number has risen above $400,000, a jump of 43%. That’s one of the reasons that some are arguing today that costs of running credit scores somehow plays a determinative role in driving prices up. But that’s a red herring—a way to distract policymakers from what’s really at fault.

According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, there are three primary factors driving up home prices: 1) a lack of supply; 2) higher interest rates; and rising insurance premiums due to the increased risk of weather amid a changing climate.

Keep reading in Forbes.