issue: Economy

Forbes: Congress Holds The Key To More Broadband Competition

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Are we getting enough broadband competition? And if not, where should we look for a new Internet access provider to keep broadband prices in check and to spur incumbents to increase speeds?

The answer may be staring you in the face . . . assuming you are reading this from a wireless device. Even if you’re looking at a desktop, your smartphone is likely within reach. And therein lies the key to broadband competition.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on “Wireless Broadband and the Future of Spectrum Policy.” With luck, policymakers will see the connection between more spectrum and broadband competition.

With the recent transition from third-generation to 4G, wireless networks now offer speeds—between 30 and 40 Mbps down—that are comparable to the average speeds attainable on a cable connection. And 5G wireless speeds promise to be even faster.

A super-charged wireless broadband offering would force DSL providers to upgrade to fiber, which in turn would cause cable operators to enhance their speeds.

When confronted with the notion of wireless-wireline substitution, the naysayers point to data limitations on wireless plans. But those limits are there to preserve the wireless experience given the constraints associated with commercially available spectrum. Relieve those constraints and wireless becomes an even closer substitute to wireline broadband (as those pesky data limits are likely raised).

How much additional spectrum is needed? A recent study estimates that the United States will need more than 350 MHz of additional licensed spectrum to support projected commercial mobile wireless demand, which represents a 50 percent increase in the supply of licensed broadcast spectrum.

And the source of this newfound spectrum? After the broadcasters’ spectrum, the next tranche of beachfront property would come from federal agencies, which have little incentive to give up the goods.

To align the broadcasters’ interests with those of wireless consumers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came up with a novel idea—an “incentive auction” that permits broadcasters to share a portion of the proceeds from the sale; those who don’t participate will now be forced to explain to shareholders why they can put the spectrum to greater use.

Economists have a fancy word for this problem—some firms (think polluters) don’t “internalize” the cost of their actions. Sitting on valuable spectrum, while not as onerous as polluting, doesn’t cost an agency a dime. The key is to make these agencies internalize the cost of their actions (or inaction), as the FCC is about to do for the broadcasters.

There may be some impediments to importing the incentive auction wholesale into the realm of government agencies. Although the Department of Defense was compensated for its relocation costs via a portion of the proceeds from the recent AWS-3 auction, paying an agency to surrender spectrum may not induce the same response as paying a profit-maximizing firm. Another complication is that some underutilized spectrum is shared by several agencies. Still other agency heads might think that an influx of auction revenues would be met with offsetting budget cuts by Congress.

Several clever ideas have been floated to overcome this inertia and force agencies to internalize the cost of their spectrum holdings. Some have suggested that underutilized spectrum count against an agency’s budget at market rates; if the agency doesn’t relinquish the spectrum or put it to greater use, the agency sees its budget chopped. Alternatively, we could encourage direct transactions (sales or leasing plans) between private carriers and government agencies, cutting the FCC and Congress out of the loop.

For those who doubt that an agency could ever respond to financial incentives, there’s always command-and-control techniques; for example, Congress could establish a spectrum czar tasked with shifting a certain percentage of spectrum from the public to the commercial sector every year.

Whichever way is ultimately chosen, we must expedite the process. A study by CTIA estimates that it takes a staggering 13 years on average for wireless spectrum to be deployed after the legislative and regulatory process begins.

That’s unacceptable, particularly given the critical role that wireless broadband plays in the economy. MIT economist Jerry Hausman estimated that the FCC’s delay in licensing the first spectrum for cellular service, which was caused by regulatory indecision, cost U.S. consumers $31 billion to $50 billion in lost welfare annually for between seven and ten years.

According to a 2010 FCC analysis, making 300 MHz available by 2014 would create over $100 billion in economic value for the country. Given the shift in traffic from wireline to wireless networks since 2010, and given the potential of wireless to be an even more effective restraint on wireline broadband prices, the social value of an infusion of the same magnitude today could be worth even more.

Congress should assign a task force comprised of engineers and economists to investigate the best approaches and present a plan in 90 days. The cost of delay is simply too much to bear.

This piece is cross-posted from Forbes.

What New Data Says about Debt-Free College

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

New data shows that young people who don’t fit within the current college system are facing great hardship in today’s workforce. This sheds valuable insight into the debt-free college debate, the charge for injecting more money into the federal student aid system at the top of Democrat’s 2016 election talking points.

With outstanding student loans topping $1.2 trillion, it’s little wonder that Democrats from Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, and even Hillary Clinton are choosing to make tackling student debt a priority.

But student debt is the biggest problem for non-completers, who are increasingly unable to find decent work. Good job options have become so limited for non-graduates that the millions of young Americans who do not perfectly fit into the standard college mold now find themselves at an inherent disadvantage.

Indeed, my analysis of the latest labor force data highlights the plight of young people with some college but no degree. Since 2000, young people aged 16-24 neither enrolled in school nor in the labor force in June with some college or an Associate’s degree has increased by 700,000, or about 120%.  (Overall, young people aged 16-24 neither enrolled in school nor in the labor force in June increased by 1.4 million, or 27%, since 2000.) This chart considers June to get best sense of underlying trends in young people not in school.*

LaborForce

The implication is that we need better workforce preparedness options for those without a college degree, not simply debt-free college. The policies that comprise “debt-free college” merely throw more resources at propping up the current higher education system. For Bernie Sanders, that means free tuition. For Martin O’Malley, it means regulating tuition and expanding federal grants to schools and students. For Hillary Clinton, it’s just a conceptual endorsement that everyone should graduate college, and without debt.

Such policies are short-sighted. Rising student debt is a symptom not of inadequate federal funding, but of a broken federal financial aid system and of a higher education system in need of a shake-up. Greater transfers of money from taxpayers to students and schools will only exacerbate the challenges young people face in today’s labor market, by discouraging needed innovation in higher education. It quickly turns into an expensive and inefficient way to match workers with jobs.

Indeed, with the falling costs of information-sharing, thanks to the proliferation of high-speed broadband, and promising rise of innovation in education technology, there should be a downward pressure in college tuition. And with more people than ever graduating college, we should see an overall rise in real earnings. Yet college costs continue to rise at a faster pace than inflation, and the real earnings of young graduates have fallen 12% in the last decade.

By perpetuating the status-quo, policies that comprise debt-free college will not enhance opportunity and social mobility for those who need it – it will only widen the gap between young Americans with and without a degree. The barriers to innovation in higher education will remain, along with a lack of incentive to provide higher education more efficiently and effectively. Instead of introducing productivity-enhancing reforms to deal with rising enrollments and falling state funding, such as customized education or hybrid learning, higher education institutions can continue to use federal student aid to fill budget holes. In fact, groundbreaking new research from the NY Federal Reserve directly ties increases in federal student aid eligibility to increases in tuition.

Without serious reform, we cannot possibly hope to realize the enormous potential coming from the tech sector to transform the design and delivery of higher education and workforce training. Happily there is promise for real progress: a Senate HELP hearing last week focused on need for breaking down barriers to innovation in higher education. Still, until Democrats move past the “debt-free college” approach, and the notion that college degrees are the only answer, 2016-themed rhetoric on college affordability will be little more than that.

*Note: Enrollment and labor force figures in June have been comparable with those in July over time, for those who are interested in complete mid-summer analysis.

Financial Times: US income inequality rises up political agenda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President, Will Marshall, was quoted in a piece by Financial Times addressing how 2016 Presidential candidates are approaching strengthening the middle class and reducing income inequality:

Will Marshall, founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, says that Democrats too need to recognise the centrality of growth to any programme aimed at lifting middle class incomes. “Americans are aware that the private economy is ailing. Democrats don’t have a plausible theory for how they will unleash private sector growth,” he said. “Growth is the best antidote to inequality.”

Read the article in its entirety at Financial Times.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic competence

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

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

How did this come to pass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A vision of the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National identity and belonging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

PRESS RELEASE: PPI Applauds Congress on Trade Votes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

Read the piece in its entirety at The Washington Post.

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

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

Read the piece in its entirety at NEWSMAX. 

Mandel: Eliminating an Obsolete Regulation at the FCC (Updated)

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Update (6/11/15): PPI applauds the FCC’s adoption of the “effective competition” order on June 2 (explained below). This order acknowledges the reality that on most cable systems, the video channels subject to “effective competition” from other providers, both satellite and landline. The FCC order says in part: “As a result, each franchising authority will be prohibited from regulating basic cable rates. unless it successfully demonstrates that the cable system is not subject to Competing Provider Effective Competition.”

This is not the FCC making new law…rather, this is the FCC enforcing the provisions of existing law, which clearly states the conditions under which basic cable service rates can be freed from local regulation.  Given the importance of eliminating or rewriting outmoded regulations wherever possible, the FCC has done the right thing.

 

5/13/15

PPI favors the elimination or rewriting of outmoded regulations wherever possible. We believe that clearing the deadwood of obsolete rules is a win-win for consumers, workers, and businesses, allowing regulators to focus limited resources on more important issues while freeing companies to innovate faster.

That’s why we strongly favor FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to streamline the “effective competition” rule for cable video providers. Cable television has long been one of the most regulated industries in the economy, including regulation of their rates by local authorities. The justification for such price controls—not acceptable for most industries—was the lack of meaningful competition from other video providers.

But the world has changed. Today many if not most cable video systems face a wide range of competitors from satellite providers such as DISH and telecom companies such as AT&T and Verizon, not to mention new internet-based video services such as Netflix and Amazon.

The legislation governing cable operators allows them to be relieved of some regulatory burdens—including rate regulation by local authorities–if the FCC rules that they face “effective competition.” The legislation includes several possible tests for effective competition, including a satellite video provider or other competitor having 15% of the pay video market, or if a phone company is offering video service in the area.

These hurdles are not hard to reach, given the prevalence of satellite and other video competitors. As a result, the FCC has ruled in favor of effective competition on almost all the hearings on this subject since 2013.

Nevertheless, up to now, cable video companies have had to go through a long and burdensome process to get regulatory relief. That is why Wheeler is proposing to simplify the process by adapting it to market realities. Challengers would have to demonstrate that effective competition did not exist in a particular location. The net result is that a larger number of cable video providers would have greater freedom to compete and innovate.

Given the amount of competition to cable, it is unlikely that cable video rates would suddenly jump. After all, with the prevalence of alternatives, and subscriber growth having topped out, why should cable companies drive away customers?

We have had disagreements with Chairman Wheeler, particularly around the Open Internet issue. But on this issue, his approach to cleaning up the regulatory process makes excellent sense for both consumers and companies.

PRESS RELEASE: A Moment of Truth for Pro-Growth Progressives on Trade

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON–Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, today released the following statement prior to a vote on Trade Promotion Authority in the House of Representatives:

“Opening overseas markets to U.S. exports is integral to putting America back on a high-growth trajectory. PPI therefore urges pro-growth progressives to support President Obama’s major trade initiatives. To conclude trade agreements that advance U.S. interests, this President, like any president, needs Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). What’s more, TPA enables Congress to identify its key objectives for U.S. trade policy.

“As PPI has detailed in recent reports on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda and open digital trade, new U.S. trade agreements can make vital progress on issues that are important to Democrats and progressives. They can, for example, tap a growing global middle class to fuel more inclusive American economic growth, strengthen and expand the reach of rules on labor rights and environment protection, and ‘democratize’ trade by empowering entrepreneurs, small businesses, and consumers to more directly participate in and benefit from global commerce.

“TPA would provide a fairer and considerably more open process for considering new trade agreements, and would obligate future administrations—both Democrat and Republican—to pursue other progressive priorities in future trade agreements, as well. Without TPA and the important new trade initiatives that it would enable, other countries—particularly China—would have much greater influence in setting global trade norms that fail to reflect high standards or progressive goals.

“Key Democratic and progressive constituencies support TPA and new trade agreements. In endorsing TPA, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has emphasized that expanding trade is critical for good jobs in America’s metro areas, which depend on exports for fully one-third of their economic growth. And, according to recent opinion surveys, Democrats (58 percent), millennials (69 percent), and Hispanics (71 percent) all believe that free trade agreements are, on balance, good for the United States.

“PPI applauds those House Democrats who have stood up forthrightly for liberal trade and TPA. As the House takes up TPA tomorrow, we hope others also will reject the spurious arguments and bullying of anti-trade activists who yearn for the industrial landscape of the 1970s and imagine that Americans can prosper in isolation from the rest of the world.”

###

 

The BEPS Effect: New International Tax Rules Could Kill US Jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tax avoidance by multinationals, and the creative use of loopholes, has long been part of the international tax system. Governments have usually responded with targeted measures to close those loopholes. But after the Great Recession, many national governments faced extraordinarily tight budgets and huge debt burdens. It was therefore especially galling for politicians in the United States and Europe to see large profitable multinationals such as Google, Apple, and Starbucks apparently paying less than their “fair” share of taxes.

In response, in 2013 the finance ministers of the world’s largest countries—the group known as the G20—and the OECD initiated a sweeping reassessment of the global tax system known as the “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) Project. The OECD tax experts at the BEPS Project, based in Paris, were told to develop a set of principles to “ensure that profits are taxed where economic activities generating the profits are performed and where value is created.”What’s more, they were also told to finish their work on an accelerated schedule, by the end of 2015.

It is now the middle of 2015, and the broad outlines of the new BEPS principles are becoming clear. This paper examines these new principles, as laid out by the BEPS project, and analyzes their likely impact on tax revenues and jobs. We find that unless Congress and the Obama Administration act quickly to reform the U.S. corporate tax system, the BEPS principles give multinationals a very strong incentive to move high-paying creative and research jobs from the United States to Europe.

Download “2015.06-Mandel_The-BEPS-Effect_New-International-Tax-Rules-Could-Kill-US-Jobs”