AT&T is a big company, which perhaps explains why federal regulators are ganging up to block its proposed merger with T-Mobile. Big must be bad, right?
That’s certainly the view of consumer advocacy groups, which routinely oppose business mergers as threats to competition. They seem to have the ear of the Federal Communications Commission, which announced last week that it would join the Justice Department in opposing the deal, citing concerns about job losses and higher consumer prices.
But there’s another important group of stakeholders that regulators should be listening to: AT&T’s workers. They are urging the government to take a broader view of the merger’s potential impact on U.S. investment and competitiveness.
At a time of shrinking private sector union membership, it’s worth noting that the company’s 42,000 wireless workers are represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The union issued a <a href="mailto:https://files.cwa-union.org/tmobile/20111107_ATTTmo_Real_Story.pdf">report this month</a> strongly supporting the company’s acquisition of T-Mobile as a spur to innovation and a job-creator.
Such arguments merit attention, if only because it’s not often that you find a successful U.S. company in synch with its unionized workforce. Beyond that, however, there are compelling economic reasons for regulators to start looking at proposed mergers through the eyes of America’s producers, not just its consumers.
President Obama, fresh from a tour of the Asia-Pacific, articulated them in a recent radio address. “Over the last decade, we became a country that relied too much on what we bought and consumed,” he said. “We racked up a lot of debt, but we didn’t create many jobs at all.” Reviving U.S. competitiveness, he said, will require Americans to focus more on building things than buying them. Obama also called for “restoring America’s manufacturing might, which is what helped us build the largest middle-class in history.”
Opponents say CWA backs the merger because it has its eyes on T-Mobile’s workers, who aren’t organized. But the union’s analysis of the $39 billion deal emphasizes AT&T’s plans to boost capital investment in the wireless broadband sector. It cites think tank estimates that such investment could produce up to 96,000 new jobs, not including another 5,000 jobs the company promises to bring back to the United States from overseas.
AT&T has said it will merge its networks with those of T-Mobile, and invest an additional $8 billion to expand its 4G LTE wireless broadband infrastructure. It also has pledged to retain T-Mobile’s non-managerial workers. The CWA report asserts that, absent the merger, T-Mobile is headed toward extinction. Having been cut loose by its parent company, Deutsch Telecom, it lacks the capital to acquire spectrum and build its own 4G network.
Opponents of the merger—including AT&T’s competitors as well as consumer groups—say the merger would give the telecom giant too much market power and lead to higher prices. Regulators ought to carefully weigh such claims. But as a forthcoming PPI report argues, mergers and acquisitions among dynamic, high-tech companies often have the effect of spurring more innovation. In the fiercely competitive telecommunications sector, prices for wireless services—voice, text, and data—have been trending downward, even as quality of these services has improved dramatically.
Even so, low consumer prices aren’t the only public interest at stake here. More important is expanding investment—in technological innovation, a highly skilled workforce and world-class infrastructure. This is the only way to make U.S. companies and workers more competitive in global markets that does not entail lowering our standard of living.
As the Progressive Policy Institute has <a href="mailto:https://www.progressivepolicy.org/telecom-investments-the-link-to-u-s-jobs-and-wages">documented here</a>, the telecom sector is leading a dynamic wave of innovation in mobile telephony and broadband that is creating good jobs in the United States. That’s no mean achievement at a time when unemployment is stuck at 9 percent—and about twice that if you take into account people who have given up looking for jobs.
While other corporations chase cheap labor by moving production offshore, we have dubbed communications companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast “Investment Heroes” because they are making huge bets on the American economy. Surely that’s something government regulators ought to factor into their decisions.
Our country needs a new model for economic growth that emphasizes production over consumption, saving over borrowing, and exports over imports. Such a shift is essential not only to rebuild the great American job machine, but also to rebalance a global economy that has become overly dependent on U.S. consumers.
It’s time once again for America to be a global center for production—and we need federal regulators to get with the program too.
Photo credit: <strong id="yui_3_4_0_3_1322506314096_1108"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/katgloor/">Kat Gloor</a></strong>
The official failure of the congressional “supercommittee” came and went without much hand-wringing in Wingnut World; indeed, the prevailing sentiment was quiet satisfaction that Republicans had not “caved” by accepting tax increases as part of any deficit reduction package. It was all a reminder that most conservative activists are not, as advertised, obsessed with reducing deficits or debts, but only with deficits and debts as a lever to obtain a vast reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and the elimination of progressive taxation. For the most part, the very same people wearing tricorner hats and wailing about the terrible burden we are placing on our grandchildren were just a few years ago agreeing with Dick Cheney’s casual assertion that deficits did not actually matter at all.
It is interesting that throughout the Kabuki Theater of the supercommittee’s “negotiations,” the GOP’s congressional leadership came to largely accept the Tea Party fundamental rejection of any compromise between the two parties’ very different concepts of the deficit problem. From the get-go, Democrats were offering both non-defense-discretionary and entitlement cuts in exchange for restoring tax rates for the very wealthy to levels a bit closer to (though still lower than) their historic position. The maximum Republican offer was to engage in some small-change loophole closing accompanied by an actual lowering of the top rates in incomes, plus extension of the Bush tax cuts to infinity. Conservatives are perfectly happy to let an on-paper “sequestration” of spending take place, with the expectation that a Republican victory in 2012 will put them in a position to brush aside the defense cuts so authorized and then go after their federal spending targets with a real vengeance.
The GOP presidential candidates have offered two opportunities during the last week for wingnuts of a particular flavor to assess their views and character. The much-awaited Thanksgiving Family Forum in Des Moines was perhaps the first candidate forum of the cycle in which no one even pretended to set aside cultural issues in favor of an obsessive focus on the economy or the federal budget. The format, involving not a debate but a serial interrogation of candidates by focus group master Frank Luntz, was explicitly aimed at getting to each contender’s “worldview,” the classic Christian Right buzzword for one’s willingness to subordinate any and all secular considerations and choose positions on the issues of the day via a conservative-literalist interpretation of the Bible (i.e., one in which phantom references to abortion are somehow found everywhere, and Jesus’ many injunctions to social activism are treated as demands for private charity rather than redistributive efforts by government).
According to The Iowa Republican’s Craig Robinson in his assessment of the event, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were the only candidates who succeeded in articulating a “biblical worldview” under Luntz’s questioning. Newt Gingrich got secular media attention for his Archie Bunkerish “take a bath and get a job” shot at the dirty hippies of OWS, but inside the megachurch where the event was held, the star was probably Santorum, whose slim presidential hopes strictly depend on Iowa social conservatives adopting him as their candidate much as they united around Mike Huckabee in 2008.
It is interesting that immediately after the event, Rick Perry joined Santorum and Bachmann as the only candidates willing to sign the radical “marriage vow” pledge document released back in July by the FAMiLY Leader organization, the primary sponsor of the Thanksgiving Family Forum. This makes him eligible for an endorsement by FL and its would-be kingmaking founder, Bob Vander Plaats. It appears a battle has been going on for some time in Iowa’s influential social conservative circles between those wanting to get behind a “true believer” like Santorum or Bachmann and those preferring to give a crucial boost to acceptable if less fervent candidates like Perry or Gingrich. The outcome of this internal debate, which was apparently discussed in a private “summit” meeting on Monday, will play a very important role in shaping the endgame of the Iowa caucus contest—as will the decision by Mitt Romney as to whether or not he will fully commit to an Iowa campaign (he is opening a shiny new HQ in Des Moines, which some observers are interpreting as an “all-in” gesture).
Without question, it became abundantly clear during the last week that the “Gingrich surge” in the nomination contest is real, or at least as real as earlier booms for Bachmann, Perry and Cain. The last five big national polls of Republicans (PPP, Fox, USAToday/Gallup, Quinnipiac and CNN) have all showed Gingrich in the lead. The big question is whether and when his rivals choose to unleash a massive attack on the former Speaker based on their bulging oppo research files featuring whole decades of flip-flops, gaffes, failures and personal “issues.”
Interestingly, though, Gingrich may have already opened the door to suspicious wingnut scrutiny without any overt encouragement from his rivals. During the last week’s second major multi-candidate event, the CNN/AEI/Heritage “national security” debate last night, Gingrich may have ignored the lessons of the Perry campaign by risking his own moment of heresy on the hot-button issue of immigration, calling for a Selective Service model whereby some undocumented workers with exemplary records could obtain legal permanent status if not citizenship. He was immediately rapped by Romney and Bachmann for supporting “amnesty.” We’ll soon see if Newt’s long identification with the conservative movement and his more recent savagery towards “secular socialists” will give him protection from such attacks, or if his signature vice of hubris is once again about to smite him now that he’s finally become a viable candidate for president.
America is deep in a jobs crisis. The unemployment rate is stuck around 9 percent nationally, with states such as Florida, Nevada and South Carolina in double digits. Real wages for educated workers are still plunging, while new college graduates are squeezed between rising student loans and the toughest labor market in recent memory.
Against this backdrop, the global economy looms large as both threat and promise. There’s a justifiable fear that America has lost its competitiveness, that our jobs are being siphoned to China and India, that the wages of our young people are being depressed by a global education glut. At the same time, the rapidly growing markets of the developing world could be a potent target for U.S. exports of goods, services, and intellectual capital, creating good jobs here.
In this global economy, we need to know which industries are internationally competitive, which ones aren’t, and whether the gaps are closing or widening. Unfortunately, the reality is this data currently does not exist. And what we don’t know hurts us, because it prevents us from pursuing effective strategies for boosting US jobs.
Although the government collects reams of economic data, it doesn’t measure what’s most vital to our ability to reverse America’s jobs decline: how our goods and services stack up against those of China and other competitors in terms of price.
You can’t fix what you can’t measure. We need a new national jobs strategy that begins with an accurate way of measuring America’s competitive prowess, on an industry-by-industry basis.
This policy brief proposes that the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertake a “Competitiveness Audit.” The Competitiveness Audit will compare the price of selected imports with the comparable domestically produced goods and services. That will tell us the size of the ‘price gap’ between imports and domestic production.
A funny thing happened on my way to an international forum on democracy and human rights in Rome last week: the Italian government fell. It was hard to concentrate on the business at hand with crowds gathering in piazzas to demand the head, figuratively speaking, of the man who has dominated Italian politics since 1994—Silvio Berlusconi.
What sparked the crisis was a sharp spike last week in Italian bond yields, which raised doubts about Italy’s ability to service its $2.6 trillion debt. The prospect of a default by Europe’s fourth-largest economy sent tremors throughout the euro zone. Forget about Greece: If big countries like Italy and Spain can’t pay their debts, European banks that hold all that sovereign debt will fail. Then someone—most likely Germany—will have to finance a massive bank bailout just like the United States did in 2007. Otherwise, a financial collapse would likely throw Europe, and probably the United States, into a bona fide depression.
Fortunately, this prospect seems to have concentrated minds in Italy. Arriving in Rome on Thursday, I found its usually fractious political class galvanized by the crisis and resolved to put a new government in place before the markets open today.
On Friday, the Italian Senate passed a budget with an initial set of reforms (including a hike in the retirement age) tailored to European Union specifications. On Saturday, Berulsconi resigned, as gleeful crowds chanted “Bye Bye Silvio” and sang the “Hallelujah” chorus outside the Quirinal palace. And on Sunday, Mario Monti, a widely respected technocrat, agreed to form a unity government.
As our own Congress dithers endlessly over debt reduction, it was nice to see democratic politicians somewhere acting purposefully and with dispatch. How long the Monti government will last, however, is anyone’s guess, especially since it must pass painful reforms aimed at paring down bloated state bureaucracies and stimulating private enterprise. But Rome’s tumultuous weekend seems to have made several things clear.
First, Italy’s sovereign debt crisis probably has driven a stake through the political heart of Berlusconi. In recent years, he has presided more than governed as Italy’s once-vibrant economy slowed down and its borrowing soared. Like a latter-day Nero, the 75-year-old Berlusconi, Italy’s richest man, seemed more interested in fiddling with underage girls in “bunga-bunga” parties than tackling structural reform of Italy’s economy.
Second, Berlusconi’s fall and Monti’s government of national unity have the potential to rescramble Italian politics in useful ways. Beneath a top layer of supposedly apolitical technocrats, Monti is expected to fill key sub-cabinet level posts with leaders from the center and center-left, shutting out the right-wing Northern League as well as the left’s unreconstructed Communists and Socialists. This could spur the emergence of a new coalition of the progressive center dedicated to reviving Italy’s global competitiveness rather than rehearsing old ideological arguments. Such a coalition might include pragmatic progressives like Rome’s former Mayor, Francesco Rutelli and Gianni Vernetti, whose Alliance of Democrats organized a fascinating, if overshadowed, conference featuring democracy activists from the Middle East, North Africa, China, and elsewhere.
Third, the imbalance between the power of global markets and the weakness of European governance has reached a sort of tipping point. The markets are now punishing spendthrift governments like Greece and Italy that have borrowed massively to cover the growing gap between public spending and anemic private sector growth. For these and other European countries, joining the euro-zone in 2002 was an opportunity to relax fiscal constraints, because such profligacy would no longer lead to currency devaluations. It turns out, however, that a common monetary union also requires common fiscal policies, and the 17 members of the euro-zone have no institutions for setting or enforcing such policies.
At its heart, then, the euro crisis is really a political crisis. I heard many Italian political leaders over the weekend argue that the salvation of the euro lies in “more Europe.” This means a resumption of the stalled march toward more comprehensive economic and political integration, which of course means EU members must surrender more sovereignty. This won’t be easy, especially if to average Europeans it means the pain and sacrifice of a thorough-going fiscal retrenchment, or bailouts for countries that have evaded the consequences of irresponsible policies by free-riding on the euro.
Italians, nonetheless, seem ready to cast their lot with Europe, even as they search for more effective political leadership to revitalize their economy.
In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008, housing was at the top of policymakers’ priorities. Congress saw a flurry of proposals to deal with the mounting wave of defaults and foreclosures, and the collapse of Fannie and Freddie led first to intensive federal intervention and then to one round of full-fledged debate on what the future of these agencies should be.
Today, with housing in at least as bad a shape as it was in 2008, housing is now the forgotten debate. The conversation over Fannie and Freddie has stalled, if not died altogether; the government’s efforts to stem foreclosures have been largely unsuccessful; and with a handful of bold exceptions, few policymakers are putting forward ideas to restore homeowner equity, cope with burgeoning inventory and spark new demand in the market.
But with the economy continuing to sputter, housing is a problem that policymakers can’t afford to ignore any longer.
While some may debate the chicken-and-egg issue of whether housing can lead the recovery or whether a recovery can stabilize housing, there’s no dispute that the health of the housing market and the broader economy are inextricably intertwined. Housing and its related industries account for roughly 19 percent of the American economy.1 Since the housing crash, housing—especially construction—has shed 2.9 million jobs2 since the start of the recession. Not coincidentally, the states with the highest unemployment rates—California, Nevada, Rhode Island, Michigan3—are among the states that have been hit hardest by the housing crisis. Moreover, Americans
have lost $7 trillion in equity,4 which is dampening consumer confidence as well as forcing many families to rethink their future plans and expectations of financial security.
Two years after the meltdown in the nation’s housing market, housing re- mains weak. Home prices fell to a new low in the first quarter of this year— confirming a feared “double-dip” in the market. Prices are now down nearly 33 percent from their high five years ago.
With housing and its related industries—construction, home retail, etc.— constituting almost 19 percent of the nation’s economy over the last 40 years,2 restoring the housing market will be essential to a sustained eco- nomic recovery. And key to this will be ensuring a robust market for first- time home sales.
Yet, even with home prices as low as they currently are, many potential homebuyers may face more—not fewer—obstacles in their path to home- ownership. In the aftermath of the crisis, credit is tighter, as are down pay- ment requirements. At the same time, the stresses of the economy have meant that potential homebuyers are in worse shape financially than they once were.
The creation of a new, tax-preferred mechanism for down payment sav- ings—a “HomeK”—could help first-time homebuyers navigate these new hurdles while also promoting more savings. And if structured as a carve-out from existing retirement planning mechanisms, not as a new type of ac- count, the HomeK would have the added benefit of promoting retirement savings and will not contribute to further tax code complexity.
For years when I was chief economics writer at BusinessWeek, I would write our post-Nobel piece. I was often one of the few people who would challenge the adulation of the prize winners, notably in this 2005 piece on the Nobel in game theory.
But today’s awards to Tom Sargent and Chris Sims simply leaves me stunned. Let me give you a brief excerpt:
“It is not an exaggeration to say that both Sargent’s and Sims’ methods are used daily … in all central banks that I know of in the developed world and at several finance departments too,” Nobel committee member Torsten Persson told the AP.
I’m not sure why this is supposed to be a good thing. None of the central banks foresaw the financial crisis, none of them foresaw the weakness of the recovery, and none of them had the right policy prescriptions. This lack of ability to predict big shocks and their aftermath is a central flaw of the Sargent-Sims approach. Sargent is well known for his work on rational expectations, which has a tough time with ‘irrational’ booms and busts. And Sims’s work on ‘vector autoregressions’ has a difficult time anticipating sudden shifts in regime, such as the shift from the Great Moderation to the today’s incredible volatility.
I would have much preferred to see the awards going to a growth economist, like Paul Romer; an expert in financial markets, like Reinhart and Rogoff; or an international economics expert. While I’m sure Sargent and Sims deserve their award, the timing makes the economics profession feel out of touch and irrelevant.
Location 902 Hart Senate Office Building
U.S. Capitol Complex
Washington, DC 20501
Join PPI and top leaders from the White House, Congress, private industry, labor, and the financial sector to discuss current issues in U.S. infrastructure policy. White House economist Gene Sperling will explain the administration’s proposals for new infrastructure investment and their potential impact on the economy. Senator John Kerry and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro will describe their proposals to create a national infrastructure bank to improve infrastructure spending decisions and maintain U.S. competitiveness in the global economy, and private-sector leaders will explain how infrastructure projects will create jobs and mobilize private capital to boost economic growth and investment.
Have you checked your wireless bill lately? You’ll see a hefty set of extra taxes on mobile service—taxes that are not imposed on any other good or service. These excise taxes represent a toll that state and local governments impose on their population of phone users. It is very tempting, at this time of tight budgets, to keep raising and raising the excise tax on wireless. After all, no one really wants to give up using their iPhone.
It is time to remove that temptation.
Congress is finally considering a bill that makes good economic and social sense – the Wireless Tax Fairness Act (WTFA). The WTFA will prohibit state and local governments from imposing any new discriminatory tax on or with respect to mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property for five years from the date of its enactment. Currently, wireless tax rates average 16.3 percent nationally, two times the national sales tax rate, according to Scott Mackey, an economist who works on wireless tax policy. These taxes are paid by us, 300 million everyday consumers, and each of us pays an average $7.84 a month in wireless taxes, fees, and government surcharges.
Wireless taxes are a perfect example of how excise taxes can lead to distortions in the market, hurting consumers. In fact, wireless taxes are more distortionary than other taxes, because of how narrow they are in scope, explicitly targeting wireless services (and therefore explicitly targeting the people who rely on wireless services). Further, demand for wireless services have been found to be rather sensitive to price, causing consumers to drop service as wireless taxes creep ever higher. This means that as taxes on wireless services increase, people will consume less – less of a service integral to everyday activities.
Worse, the market distortion caused by wireless taxes is particularly hard on poor and middle-income families. Studies by the Pew Foundation show wireless taxes are “regressive” in that they negatively affect poor and middle-income families more than the wealthy, as poorer families rely more heavily on wireless services for internet and phone access. So, not only do wireless taxes impose distortions on the entire population of wireless users, but they more negatively affect the people who struggle the most to pay for it.
Wireless taxes, unlike other “sin” taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, are simply a means for states and local governments to collect money for general funds with no other intended purpose. In other words, states and local governments are not imposing wireless taxes as a way to encourage less wireless use. Yet that is exactly what wireless taxes do.
Dissenters say states and local governments won’t be able to pay for basic public goods and services if the WFTA goes into effect. They argue states need all the money they can get in these tough economic times. But state and local government budget gaps should not be resolved at the cost of people’s ability to access wireless services. The idea of taxing people’s connection to the information economy, which allows people to be more productive and make larger economic contributions to society, makes no sense. It is in these tough economic times Congress should implement policies that encourage more wireless use, and more participation in the information economy of the future, not less.
President Obama’s tax offensive may be aimed at energizing his despondent base, but it’s also touching a nerve with the broader public. A new Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly (66 percent) back the president’s call to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000.
Evidently, you don’t have to be a European-style social democrat to believe that the rich should chip in more to help get federal deficits under control. Grover Norquist take note: We are all class warriors now.
Official statistics on incomes explain why. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the top 10 percent of earners on average have seen their income grow a whopping 106 percent since 1979. Over the same period, those in the middle and lowest quintile have experienced meager income growth of just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.
Moreover, IRS data show that the top 10 percent have received 42 percent of the total share of adjusted gross income earned between 1986 and 2008. Conservatives lament that high earners are also paying a higher share of their earnings in taxes. That’s true, but their income is growing faster than their tax burden. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent increased by 28 percent from 1986 to 2008. (IRS tables)
In short, income gains over the past generation have been dramatically concentrated at the top. Modest increases in the tax burden borne by the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans will still leave them very well off compared to the rest of us. As President Obama has said, this isn’t class warfare so much as math.
But the math doesn’t tell us the best way to raise more revenue from the most affluent Americans. In thinking about this, progressives should keep two imperatives in mind. One is the need to make the tax code more pro-growth as well as more fair. The other is to make sure that tax reform advances the cause of debt reduction.
President Obama proposed on Sept. 19 to raise $1.5 trillion in new revenue as part of his plan to cut deficits by $3.3 trillion (not including the Iraq and Afghanistan draw down) over the next 10 years. His tax initiative has two main parts. First, it would cap the benefit from itemized deductions from 35 percent, the top marginal tax rate, to 28 percent for families with income of over $250,000 (200,000 for single-filers). This is not exactly a crushing new burden on the hapless rich. In fact, it would take us back to President Reagan’s 1986 tax reform, which dropped the top rate to 28 percent. The White House says limiting deductions in this way would raise $410 billion for closing federal deficits.
Second, the President’s plan would raise an additional $866 billion by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for high earners at the end of the year, while preserving them for middle class and low income families.
Both ideas are defensible on fairness grounds. But it’s not so clear that increasing income tax rates is the best place to look right now for more revenue. Politically, increases in marginal rates are probably a non-starter with most Congressional Republicans, who still genuflect to the supply side shrine. Even some Democrats, however, are leery about raising personal income tax rates in the midst of the current jobs crisis.
The alternative is the road taken by President Obama’s own Fiscal Commission. Its “modified zero plan” (analysed by Paul Weinstein and Marc Goldwein here) would raise $1.1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures. That’s a smaller number than the President’s. But most economists believe these backdoor spending programs introduce enormous complexity and distortions into the tax code. Curtailing them would promote economic efficiency and growth.
What’s more, the Commission’s plan uses the revenue to “buy down” both corporate and personal income tax rates, and to cut deficits. These rate cuts were crucial to attracting Republican support for a bipartisan compromise that combined tax reform and entitlement reform to reduce the debt by $4.2 trillion over 10 years.
This approach, also endorsed by the Senate’s Gang of Six, has one huge advantage over other tax reform schemes – it’s attracted bipartisan support. The President’s tax plan, on the other hand, seems calculated to embarrass Republicans rather than draw them toward a “grand bargain” on debt reduction.
In any case, the fiscal commission’s plan doesn’t just pinch the rich, although they benefit disproportionately from tax expenditures and loopholes. It also hits many middle class recipients of tax subsidies like the mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion for employer-paid health plans. As appealing as it is to insist that the rich pony up more to solve the debt crisis, there are practical limits from how much we can squeeze from high earners. In truth, our fiscal chasm is so deep that middle class taxpayers will have to up their contribution as well. Otherwise, we will have to make unacceptably deep cuts in domestic and entitlement spending to get the debt under control.
So by all means, let’s ask the wealthy to chip in more. But let’s also keep in mind that soaking the rich, by itself, won’t restore fiscal responsibility in Washington.
Location The Liaison Hotel 415 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Join the Progressive Policy Institute, e21 and some of the nation’s best thinkers and leaders on housing policy for a daylong conference aimed at new ideas to restore America’s housing market and jumpstart the economy.
For weeks, August 2—the date on which the U.S. Treasury might have defaulted on its debts—was the deadline that drove policymakers toward a deal on raising the debt ceiling and lowering the nation’s spiraling debt and deficits.
Another pending deadline—October 1—has won far less attention. But it too could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy if Congress allows it to expire.
This date is when the maximum size of a mortgage loan (the “loan limit”) that can be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or bought by government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSE’s) drops significantly. On October 1, these loan limits will fall in 669 counties in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with an average reduction of more than $50,000 and in some cases by more than $100,000. In these areas, many prospective homebuyers once eligible for an FHA loan would no longer qualify, while others may face the prospect of a higher-cost “jumbo” loan.
The result could be the potential sidelining of a key segment of homebuyers, which in turn would further weaken demand, depress home prices and drop another wet blanket on consumer confidence as Americans continue to watch their home equity evaporate. Needless to say, this is the last thing the housing market or the economy needs as it struggles toward recovery.
Without question, government should ultimately pare back its involvement in the housing market and let private capital play the leading role. But this should also happen when the markets are ready, not according to an arbitrary timetable. Unfortunately, the initial conditions that warranted the current loan limits in the first place have not improved substantially. Nor does it seem private sources are ready to jump in if government support were to end.
Last month, PPI released a provocative policy brief by Will Marshall, “Labor and the Producer Society,” which argued that the Great Recession and stalled economic recovery mean, “there can be no going back to the old economic model of debt-fueled consumption.” In this, Will is precisely correct. Even as median American income failed to rise over the past two decades, consumption surged because households piled up credit card debt or tapped their home equity. The massive debt deleveraging that typically follows financial crises still has some ways to go, which means that consumption cannot be counted upon to drive economic growth.
The United States, wrote Will, needs to “shift from a consumer society to a producer society.” We need a “new economic strategy that stimulates production rather than consumption; saving rather than borrowing; and exports rather than imports.” While such a shift needs to happen, we need a conception of “producer society” that is somewhat wider than old-line manufacturing, which tends to be the image that comes to mind when talking “production.”
Yet, in some ways, a new producer society is already taking shape all across the country, driven by very real grassroots movements in tinkering, do-it-yourself (DIY) projects, entrepreneurship, and even manufacturing. This is not the producer society of auto assembly or equipment manufacturing. In rural Missouri, a Polish immigrant with a doctorate in physics has founded Open Source Ecology, which creates what it calls the “Global Village Construction Set,” dramatically lowering the barriers to farming, construction, and manufacturing. The idea has clear implications for developing countries, but for a place like the United States, with massive legacy infrastructure and deep pools of engineering talent, the idea of repurposing existing technology for lower cost and better quality is very attractive.
Or take Maker Faire, which bills itself as the “world largest DIY festival.” It is a joyous collection of “makers”: proverbial garage inventors, hobbyists, and people who like to tinker. A Maker Faire held in Detroit several months ago drew 70,000 people! A recent issue of Make magazine, moreover, featured information on how to build your own go-kart. A slightly more formal version of the maker movement is TechShop, which originated in Silicon Valley and has now expanded to Detroit and Raleigh, NC, with additional locations planned. TechShop operates on the subscription model—you pay, say, $100 per month and gain access to cutting-edge equipment such as 3-D printers and laser-cutting machines. Several new companies have already emerged from TechShop. These are the faces of American manufacturing’s future.
But we must expand our notion of “producer” as well. All around the country, thousands of people participate in Startup Weekends throughout the year. This event is exactly what it sounds like: a 54-hour crash-course in pitching ideas, forming teams, building products, and pitching again. Many actual and sustainable companies have emerged from these. To date, most Startup Weekends focus, quite naturally, on software and Web-based businesses. But in the coming months there will be a Startup Weekend focused on 3-D printing and even health services. The idea echoes those of OSE and Maker Faire: rapid learning, lower costs, higher quality.
Startup Weekend participants, moreover, see themselves as builders and creators and, yes, producers. As Marc Andreessen recently emphasized, software is “eating the world,” transforming industries that we previously thought of as far removed from software. If you follow the myriad blogs and opinion pieces in the world of technology entrepreneurship—and if you can look past the persistent claims that we are in a new “tech bubble”—it becomes clear that this is a movement of producers.
Is this enough, however, to save the American economy from a Japanese-style lost decade? Skeptics will rightly assert that these movements of makers and startups are far from sufficient to create jobs for all the unemployed and underemployed. And, the challenges facing the United States in areas like education and health care are deep-seated. We have seen, moreover, that even before the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, new companies were “starting smaller and staying smaller,” a trend that only worsened during the recession.
A full treatment of public policies and private actions that might build on the foregoing movements and fully address the American economic challenges must wait for a future column. We should work, of course, to boost the competitiveness of the “old” producer society, but this will be achieved more through free trade agreements than government-directed investments. But, history teaches that the next economic frontier is born in the depths of recessions. The future being created right now at Maker Faire, in TechShop, and at Startup Weekends is the leading frontier of our next era of economic prosperity.
In the Atlantic, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel explains why President Obama needed to start in the middle of his speech and focus on the competitiveness and production narrative:
“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere.”
President Obama needs to give his jobs speech again. This time he should start in the middle.
To addressing the American people’s concerns and to win in 2012, the President needs a narrative–a story that explains how and why we got into this mess, what he has done to help so far, and how his latest proposals might help get the economy out of a ditch.
The good news: Thursday’s jobs speech contained the beginnings of a powerful story about the need to restore U.S. competitiveness. As Obama said:
“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, and out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth.”
The bad news: Obama buried this nascent narrative in the second half of the speech. What’s more, most of his proposals last night–including the payroll tax cut–did not directly attack the competitiveness problem he identified.
Obama must do better than that. He should be telling the story of how America got distracted–by 9/11, by political infighting, and by excessive confidence. He should be explaining how we allowed ourselves to emphasize consumption and the present, rather than production and the future. And he should link each of his policy proposals to the idea of rebuilding the production economy.
Almost 30 years after the landmark study A Nation at Risk, and the subsequent hundreds of billions spent trying to ramp-up children’s mastery of basic skills through Head Start, Title 1 and No Child Left Behind, American school performance is stuck in wet cement. In the United States today, the majority of low-income children and a shocking one-third of their more affluent peers are behind when it comes to one key predictor of future achievement: fourth grade reading. Only 14 percent of African-American and 17 percent of Hispanic children are deemed “proficient” readers in fourth grade as judged by the National Assessment of Educational Progress scores.
Why is fourth grade so important? Because if children are not well on their way toward being confident readers by the age of 10, they will fall progressively behind in learning complex academic content. Researchers have found a nearly 80 percent correlation between being two years behind in reading at the 4th grade mark and dropping out of high school later.
But instead of meeting these pressing needs with modern approaches and new technologies, national education policy has unintentionally turned many of our schools into test-prep academies focused on standardized skill sets in a world that demands higher-level critical thinking. Policymakers also have ignored the central modernizing force of the 21st century—the creative media tools that have transformed nearly every element of life today except schools. In this policy brief, we suggest a new way to get over the early learning hump: Create a Digital Teacher Corps to unleash the untapped power of digital media to boost literacy among our most vulnerable children.
The model for this proposal is Teach for America (TFA), a non-profit civic enterprise that also receives some public funding from the Corporation for National and Community Service. We challenge U.S. foundations to create a competition for the best design for a non-profit organization focused on a specific goal: Ensure that 80 percent of all 10-year-olds are competent readers by 2020. The winning design would receive seed money to launch the Digital Teacher Corps, which would recruit and dispatch digitally proficient teachers into low-income school districts where they are most needed.
PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein finds six reasons to believe the Congressional Supercommittee will succeed:
Whatever you think of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgradeAmerica’s credit, their justification was fairly plain. Political gridlock has managed to scuttle several successive efforts to get a handle on the federal debt. And few, if anyone, is sanguine that the new “supercommittee” in Congress will have any better luck.
But a closer look reveals that, despite the nation’s pessimism, there are several reasons to believe that the 12-member supercommittee may be able to implement a plan that sets the nation back on track. The setup has been rigged to force a deal. So, in an age where “shorting” the market has become a sort of dirty word, the smart money may be in betting that Washington will enact a responsible comprehensive budget framework by the end of the year.
First, the dynamics of the committee itself suggest that that building sufficient support in the room will be that much more palatable. Negotiators need only corral seven of the twelve members (50 percent plus one) to send any deal straight to the floor of both houses of Congress. By comparison, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission was required to receive a full 77 percent, and managed only 61. In essence, the fact that a decision by any single member could boost any proposal past the required threshold will compel every member of the commission to negotiate in a serious manner. That diminishes the likelihood that political shenanigans will scuttle this deal like they have undermined previous negotiations.
The official failure of the congressional “supercommittee” came and went without much hand-wringing in Wingnut World; indeed, the prevailing sentiment was quiet satisfaction that Republicans had not “caved” by accepting tax increases as part of any deficit reduction package. It was all a reminder that most conservative activists are not, as advertised, obsessed with reducing deficits or debts, but only with deficits and debts as a lever to obtain a vast reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, and the elimination of progressive taxation. For the most part, the very same people wearing tricorner hats and wailing about the terrible burden we are placing on our grandchildren were just a few years ago agreeing with Dick Cheney’s casual assertion that deficits did not actually matter at all.
A funny thing happened on my way to an international forum on democracy and human rights in Rome last week: the Italian government fell. It was hard to concentrate on the business at hand with crowds gathering in piazzas to demand the head, figuratively speaking, of the man who has dominated Italian politics since 1994—Silvio Berlusconi.
President Obama’s tax offensive may be aimed at energizing his despondent base, but it’s also touching a nerve with the broader public. A new Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly (66 percent) back the president’s call to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000.
