issue: Financial Services

The Atlantic: How the Tax-Prep Industry Takes Advantage of Low-Income Filers

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Atlantic’s Gillian B. White wrote about the PPI’s recent report on the exploitation of low income workers by tax preparation services.

The Earned Income Tax Credit program has become one of the largest national anti-poverty programs in the country, distributing about $67 billion to around 28 million low-income workers and their families. By that measure, it may seem the EITC, implemented in 1975, is a success. But a recent study from Johns Hopkins finds that the dubious practices of some tax preparers mean that many families are losing a sizeable chunk of their annual credit to tax professionals who, aware of how much money was in play, didn’t hesitate to charge qualifying families excessive amounts for help filing.”

Continue the article at The Atlantic.

The Hub: Income tax preparation chains target low-income filers, study suggests

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A PPI Report by senior fellow Paul Weinstein is discussed in this article for Johns Hopkins University’s magazine.

National tax preparation chains continue to exploit the working poor, many of whom spend a significant portion of a key federal anti-poverty tax credit just to pay for filing their taxes, a new study concludes.

These large tax preparation companies tend to cluster their offices in low-income neighborhoods, according to the study, co-authored by Paul Weinstein, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Graduate Program in Public Management. ZIP codes with the highest level of taxpayers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit have about 75 percent more tax preparers per filer than neighborhoods with a more modest share of people eligible for the credit, researchers found.”

Read the rest of the piece at The Hub.

Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As Americans choose a new president in 2016, populist anger dominates the campaign. To hear Donald Trump or Senator Bernie Sanders tell it, America is either a global doormat or a sham democracy controlled by the “one percent.” These dark narratives are caricatures, but they do stem from a real dilemma: America is stuck in a slow- growth trap that holds down wages and living standards. How to break this long spell of economic stagnation is the central question in this election.

Today’s populists peddle nostalgia for our country’s past industrial glory but offer few practical ideas for building a new American prosperity in today’s global knowledge economy. Progressives owe U.S. voters a hopeful alternative to populist outrage and the false panaceas of nativism, protectionism, and democratic socialism. What America needs is a forward-looking plan to unleash innovation, stimulate productive investment, groom the world’s most talented workers, and put our economy back on a high-growth path. It’s time to banish fear and pessimism and trust instead in the liberal and individualist values and enterprising culture that have always made America great.

Download Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism

The Wall Street Journal: Marshall on Anger with Wall Street

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In his analysis of how the two parties still do not agree what caused the 2008 financial crisis, Nick Timiraos of The Wall Street Journal quotes PPI president Will Marshall:

Anger at Wall Street among primary voters in both parties illustrates how “extreme antibusiness populism on the left is intersecting with extreme antigovernment populism on the right,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank.

Read the article in its entirety at The Wall Street Journal.

Marshall on Appointments of Wall Street Veterans

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

To The Wall Street Journal‘s Nick Timiraos, PPI President Will Marshall defended the use of Wall Street appointees to high-level presidential administrative positions:

Some Democrats have faulted that approach. ‘The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,’ said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. ‘We need people who oversee the Federal Reserve system and have high posts at Treasury that have expertise in finance.'”

Read the article in it’s entirety at The Wall Street Journal. 

Agenda 2016: Reviving U.S. Economic Growth

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) teamed up with Columbia University’s Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy to co-host a compelling symposium Nov. 6-7 in New York on revitalizing the U.S. economy. The event featured a distinguished roster of Richman Center economists and scholars, as well as PPI analysts and special guests, and more than two-dozen top policy aides to Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors.

Held on Columbia’s Manhattan campus, the symposium examined the U.S. economy’s recent performance, as well as the causes of the long-term decline of productivity and economic growth. Against the backdrop of the 2016 election debate, the participants grappled with specific ideas for unleashing more economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, reforming taxes, improving regulation, expanding trade and reducing inequality by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality public schools.

The discussions, which were off-the-record to encourage maximum candor, featured the following speakers and topics:

  • An overview of the U.S. economy’s recent performance by Abby Joseph Cohen, President of the Global Markets Institute and Senior Investment Strategist at Goldman Sachs.
  • A roundtable on key elements of a high-growth strategy, led by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI, Andrew Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union and now Ronald O. Perelman Senior Fellow at the Richman Center, and
Philip K. Howard, Founder of Common Good, a nonpartisan reform coalition. The conversation touched on ways to improve the regulatory environment for innovation, including reducing regulatory accumulation and requiring faster permitting for big infrastructure projects, as well as a lively debate on the future of work in a tech-driven knowledge economy.
  • An insightful macroeconomic analysis of why productivity and economic growth have slowed, by Pierre Yared, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Yared highlighted three potential contributors to the slowdown: labor demographics and participation; “capital intensity” or business investment; and the “production efficiency” of U.S. companies.
  • A detailed examination of the impact of energy innovation—from the shale boom to renewables and the construction of a new, “smart” grid—on jobs and economic growth. Leading this segment were Jason Bordoff, formerly energy advisor to President Obama and Director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, and Derrick Freeman, Director of PPI’s Energy Innovation Project.
  • A dinner conversation at the Columbia Club with Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in Economics and Director of Columbia’s Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Drawing on his recent book, Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change, he stressed the importance of indigenous innovation in creating the conditions for broad upward mobility. He also emphasized the crucial role of “modern” or individualistic cultural values in sustaining the mass innovation and entrepreneurship America needs to flourish again.
  • A detailed look at business taxation and reform as a potential driver of economic growth. It featured Michael Graetz, Alumni Professor of Tax Law at Columbia Law School, David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and the Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics at the Columbia Law School and Co-director at the Richman Center, as well as PPI’s Michael Mandel. The discussion ranged widely over global tax frictions, including the OECD’s new “BEPS” project; the need for corporate tax reform; “patent boxes” and mounting U.S. interest in consumption taxes.
  • A roundtable on trade and productivity growth with Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity and the versatile Michael Mandel. Noting President Obama’s controversial call for a Trans-Pacific Partnership, Gerwin stressed the agreement’s potential for “democratizing” trade by making it easier for U.S. small businesses to connect with customers abroad. Mandel underscored another PPI priority: raising awareness among policymakers of the growing contribution of cross-border data flows to growth here and abroad, and the need to push back against proposals that would impede “digital trade”
  • A luncheon presentation on “financial regulation after the crisis” by Jeffrey Gordon, Richard Paul Richman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Gordon described the new regime put in place by Dodd-Frank and other rules to guard against “systemic risk” of another financial meltdown, and suggested its “perimeter” may been to be expanded beyond banks.
  • The symposium’s final panel featured a vigorous discussion on K-12 education reform and the economy. The discussants were Jonah Rockoff, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and David Osborne, who directs PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and is a co-author of the seminal “Reinventing Government.” Rockoff highlighted research showing that the returns to school improvement are enormous, and recommended reforms that could increase school quality. Osborne traced the evolution of school governance in America, and offered detailed looks at new models emerging in cities like New Orleans and Washington, D.C., both of which are leaders in the public charter school movement.

The symposium gave the policy professionals who participated a rare opportunity to delve deeply into complicated economic realities, guided by presenters of extraordinarily high caliber. The conversations were highly illuminating and will inform PPI’s work on Agenda 2016—a new blueprint for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and opportunity.

How the Ex-Im Bank Serves Main Street

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On real Main Streets across America, from Idaho to California to Maine, the Ex-Im Bank supports U.S. jobs.

On Main Streets across America, small businesses are a critical source of economic growth and good jobs. Over the past two decades, entrepreneurs and small firms have generated an astounding 65 percent of America’s net new jobs. Small businesses that export drive even greater growth.

According to shipping firm UPS, small firms engaged in global trade are 20 percent more productive and produce 20 percent greater job growth when compared to non-exporters. And because only about 4 percent of U.S. small businesses export, boosting small business trade can pay huge dividends for local communities and the overall American economy.

U.S. Export-Import Bank plays a key role in helping American small businesses seize export opportunities in foreign markets. Over the past four years, it has completed over 12,000 financing transactions for small firms—supporting nearly $50 billion in small business exports and well over 100,000 small business jobs—and has hosted over 75 small business export forums in communities nationwide. In 2014, 90 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions benefitted small businesses.

Despite this, critics like House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) have suggested that gutting the Ex-Im Bank would somehow be a victory for the “Main Street competitive economy.”

In real “Main Street” communities across America, however, small businesses and workers that have benefitted from Ex-Im Bank financing support would certainly disagree. Indeed, more than a few of the small firms that the Ex-Im Bank has supported in recent years are actually located on “Main Streets” across America. Here are just a few examples:

The Ex-Im Bank provides these and many other local companies with the real-world help they need to grow, support their communities, and create good jobs by selling globally. For instance, Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees enable NOW International, a small producer of dietary supplements in Bloomingdale, Illinois and Sparks, Nevada, to gain financial backing from local lenders for exports that directly support 35 jobs at the company.

And the benefits of Ex-Im support for larger companies like Boeing also flow to the thousands of U.S. suppliers and workers that participate in large company supply chains, including businesses that line the “Main Streets” of communities throughout America.

There are, no doubt, scores of government programs that need to be replaced or reformed. But the Ex-Im Bank isn’t one of them. Rather, the Ex-Im Bank is an efficient and prudent institution that drives exports and economic growth and supports good American jobs, all while actually making a $2 billion profit for the U.S. Treasury over the past five years. If that’s not a model for good governance, what is?

Main Street America is already increasingly frustrated with Washington. Let’s not fuel the fire by eliminating worthwhile programs that directly address Main Street’s real needs.

This piece was originally published in Republic 3.0.

A simple way to grow America’s economy and create jobs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s hard to find common ground between the two parties in Washington these days, but getting America out of this protracted entrepreneurial slump should be an urgent national priority. Here’s one idea that ought to appeal to both sides: Enable the nation’s credit unions to invest more in new and small businesses.

One of the most important measures of U.S. economic dynamism is the rate of new business creation. Unfortunately, the number of start-ups has been declining for three decades. In fact, more businesses are dying than being born.

According to the Kauffman Foundation, new businesses (those less than five years old) are responsible for nearly all net job creation in America. And businesses less than one year old have created an average of 1.5 million jobs per year for the last three decades.

And it’s not just jobs; start-ups also drive innovation. New enterprises “commercialized most of the seminal technologies of the past several centuries, including the car, the airplane, the telegraph, the telephone, the computer and the Internet search engine,” notes Brookings Institution economist Robert Litan.

Continue reading at The Hill.

 

 

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 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. 

Congress Answers PPI Call, Exempts End-Users From Dodd-Frank

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Senate voted 93-4 Thursday to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) for six years. The legislation, which is expected to be signed into law by President Obama, includes a provision exempting “end-users”– non-financial institutions, such as farms, ranches, manufacturers, small businesses, etc.– from certain inadvertent regulations imposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

In a 2011 policy brief, The Risks of Over-Regulating End-User Derivatives, PPI Senior Fellows Jason Gold and Anne Kim warned policymakers to be wary of these unintended requirements as they implemented the law and called on Congress to rectify the issue:

No one doubts that the abuse of some forms of exotic derivatives contributed to the systemic risk that led to the 2008 crisis. But derivatives are an important tool used by major American manufacturing and service companies (“end users”) to manage and protect against risks—not create them. These derivatives contribute little—if anything—to systemic risk.

Federal agencies are nonetheless contemplating regulations that could put the conventional derivatives companies use to hedge against risk in the same categorical box as the speculative trades or trades done by systemically risky firms, even though Congress did not intend for this to occur.

Subjecting these derivatives to the same limitations as riskier speculative trades—such as by imposing “margin” requirements and other overly tough regulations—would unnecessarily burden American companies. It would tie up capital that would otherwise be directed to investment and hiring, drive up the cost of producing goods and services, and ultimately cost American jobs. Ironically enough, the result would be to create more potential risk for the economy, not less.

As we emerge from the worst recession in generations, policymakers are confronted with the dual task of implementing regulations that promote private sector economic growth while also mitigating systemic risk. Sensible regulations to deal with end-user derivatives and the companies that use them are an important piece of meeting this challenge.

See: The Risks of Over-Regulating End-User Derivatives.

Is the CFPB Committing Regulatory Overreach?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is touted as one of the crowning achievements of the Dodd-Frank Act. But a new CFPB report on student loans is highly flawed, raising doubts about its regulatory reach over the private student-loan market.

The CFPB was created to bring all consumer financial products under one regulatory umbrella. It oversees everything in the financial sector that affects consumers — from credit cards, to mortgages, to auto and student loans. In its short history, the agency has responded so quickly and forcefully to allegations of consumer harm that few have questioned its expanding authority or overlapping jurisdiction with other federal regulators.

Last week, the CFPB issued its third annual report on student loan complaints. The agency first created a platform for student loan complaints in 2012, and embarked on a massive solicitation for general comment on private student loans in 2013. Shortly after, CFPB brought private non-bank loan servicers under its oversight authority.

At first glance, the report paints a picture of student borrowers victimized by unscrupulous private lenders and loan servicers. Complaints regarding loans and loan servicers are up 38 percent year over year, with many complaints indicating private lenders and servicers “provided no options [to modify repayment plans], leading the borrower to default.” Complaints against student loan giant Navient (formerly Sallie Mae) were up a staggering 48 percent, with the entire rise dubiously occurring in the month of December. An unwary reader could easily conclude that the private student-loan market is the heart of the student debt crisis, squeezing hardworking young college graduates of every dollar.

But a closer look reveals the report is fundamentally flawed. Although such a database is valuable for identifying concerns and promoting accountability, it should never be used as stand-alone justification for new regulation or policy. Yet that is exactly what this report does — it is basing policy recommendations simply on a compilation of unsubstantiated complaints.

Worse, the report is misleading in two big ways. First, the report makes the private student-loan market seem entirely to blame for the growing student debt crisis. And second, it offers no analytical evidence that private student lenders are unwilling to work with struggling borrowers.

Continue reading at The Hill.

GSE Reform: Not So Fast

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Like so many issues in Washington these days, the debate over what to do with the nation’s housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE)—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—has been caught up in the Jihad against the role of government in any form.

That’s a shame because last spring, with the announcement from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and ranking member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) of a bipartisan bill to reform the nation’s housing finance system, it appeared that the question of what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had finally been answered.

Instead, the Johnson-Crapo bill became another victim of ultra-right ideology, as strident opposition to anything short of the elimination of any government role in the mortgage backed securities marketplace remains unacceptable to House Republicans. Their approach—which was incorporated in the PATH Act (which passed the House last year), proposed virtually eliminating the Federal guarantee of mortgages in five years.

That’s not to say the Johnson-Crapo bill was perfect by any means. Compromise isn’t about creating the best solution, but rather a better solution than the status quo.

Conitue reading the brief here.

Does Ex-Im Bank Need a ‘Third Option’?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Long dogged by claims of corporate welfare, the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) finds itself once again fighting for its survival. At 80 years old, Ex-Im has always won the fight. But this time, a “third option” of reform might just be what it needs — one that focuses on making the agency better, not closing its doors.

The Export-Import Bank is a government agency with a mission to support U.S. jobs through exports. The bank provides loans, guarantees and insurance to help U.S. exporters level the playing field against foreign competitors, in a world where 59 other countries provide export financing assistance. As a “lender of last resort,” each transaction must demonstrate “additionality,” where the export would not go forward absent Ex-Im Bank.

In the past, trade promotion by leveling the playing field has been argument enough for reauthorization. But now, the battle over Ex-Im Bank is about more than corporate welfare — it’s a face-off between the establishment Republicans and Tea Party conservatives.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Senate hearing on student loans did not HELP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee on student loans seemed to clearly answer the question of who is to blame for our $1.2 trillion and climbing student debt debacle. The only problem is, it was inaccurate. That makes the conversation unproductive regarding making federal aid policy effective.

If you believed the hearing, private lenders, loan servicers (TIVAS), and greedy state guaranty agencies (GAs) are to blame. During the hearing Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) prided her role in passing recent cuts to GA-collected fees, as “providing relief to struggling borrowers.”

This is little more than politically charged rhetoric. There is no question young Americans are struggling more than any other age group, and this is exacerbated by student debt. But in reality, the finger-pointing for whom to blame is not so cut and dry, and any real improvement to the student aid system must reflect that.

Just as with the subprime mortgage crisis, everyone involved played a role in driving our student debt burden. States have decreased funding for public universities (for example, Colorado is expected to stop all funding by 2022), schools have increased tuition to fill the difference, borrowers have little incentive to make smart borrowing decisions, for-profit institutions have a less than stellar track record, and funding has been readily available regardless of credit backgrounds to enable equal access and opportunity. Of course, there is also the epidemic lack of financial literacy of student borrowers. Lenders, school counselors, parents, or the borrowers themselves could all be to blame.

Moreover, the underlying dominance of four-year college model is also partly to blame. The fact is not all four-year degrees are created equally, and not all jobs require a four-year degree. Yet the lack of other viable options for workforce success could explain why everyone is encouraged to pursue a four-year degree. It could partly explain the astonishing rise in graduate school over the last decade, as poor employment prospects force college graduates to find ways to stand out, and the rising student debt that comes along with it.

Certainly some private loan servicers are not completely innocent, and may not always put student interests above their own short-term goals. But the harsh tone taken by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) yesterday does not address the larger issues at play. Her comment, “Sallie Mae has repeatedly broken the rules and violated its contracts with the government, and yet Sallie Mae continues to make millions on its federal contracts,” even prompted the Department of Education to come to Sallie Mae’s defense.

Indeed, not all private-sector participants among the accused are approaching borrowers with mal-intent. Take for example state guaranty agencies (GA), the legacy administrators of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) for a given state. Left out of the hearing discussion seemed to be the important fact that GAs are non-profit companies designated by the Department of Education. Their fees are used for an important cause – for extensive financial literacy training programs set up across state networks. The more their fees are cut, the fewer financial literacy services they will be able to provide.

The demonization of private loan servicers might lead one to think that federalizing student loan servicing would solve the problem. However, isolating TIVAS is counter-productive. Not only are student loan servicers not the greedy profiteers they are made out to be, but there is no reason to believe the government would be more cost-effective at loan administration. Further, there is no evidence that expanding the federal role in student loan administration would do much to relieve the existing student debt burden.

Instead, Congress should work with TIVAS and GAs as partners as they work to reform the federal student aid program. Just as the issues surrounding the student debt burden are systemic, so too must be the solution. Pointing fingers at a select few accomplishes little, even if it does sound good during election season.

If there is any take-away from yesterday’s hearing, it is that student loans have become the latest issue in need of greater awareness and education concerning all of the aspects. There are over 80 million young Americans under age 20 that are counting on policymakers to get the federal aid system right for when they invest in college. Luckily, since the re-authorization of federal student aid programs is almost certain to get postponed for yet another year, it is not too late.

This article was originally posted by The Hill, read it on their website here.