Mandel for Medium: “Tech/Telecom/Ecommerce sector grew by 7.3% in 2018, Political Implications”

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are vying to see who can be toughest on the tech sector. But here’s the paradox: New data shows that the tech boom is a major force driving down unemployment, lifting economic growth, and helping voters — precisely the people that the Democratic candidates are trying to reach.

The key here is that the economic data produced by the government is not typically presented in a form that easily shows the benefits of the tech boom. Software firms, for example, are spread across at least three different industries. Ecommerce — related activities are spread across at least two industries, electronic shopping and warehousing. And telecom includes at least two three industries, telecom services, communications equipment, and data processing and hosting.

 

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here. 

Ritz for Forbes, “Keep the White Walkers Out of Our Tax Code”

Millions of Americans watched the 70th episode of HBO’s Game of Thrones last Sunday to see who would win the ultimate battle between the people of Westeros and the undead army of the White Walkers. But there is another undead threat here in America that has gotten far less attention, one that marches not on our lands and castles, but on our tax code: they’re called “tax extenders.”

What exactly are tax extenders, you may be wondering, and how are they at all similar to the mythical antagonists from Westeros? Tax extenders were a package of “temporary” provisions that that gave preferential tax treatment to particular industries or activities. For nearly 30 years, Congress voted to extend the life of these provisions – which primarily benefited niche special interest groups – for just one or two years at a time. The main purpose of this ritual was to hide the true long-term costs of these special-interest handouts from the American people.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Ritz for Forbes, “Donald Trump’s Budget For A Declining America”

After the president’s budget was released on Monday, House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) called it “A Budget for a Declining America.” Unfortunately, that might be an understatement.

The Trump administration’s Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal is a compilation of the worst ideas to come out of the Republican Party over the last decade. It would dismantle public investments that lay the foundation for economic growth, resulting in less innovation. It would shred the social safety net, resulting in more poverty. It would rip away access to affordable health care, resulting in more disease. It would cut taxes for the rich, resulting in more income inequality. It would bloat the defense budget, resulting in more wasteful spending. And all this would add up to a higher national debt than the policies in President Obama’s final budget proposal.

The most harmful aspect of Trump’s fiscal blueprint is its scheme for gutting investments in public goods that are core responsibilities of government. The administration proposes to reduce the share of gross domestic product devoted to non-defense (domestic) discretionary spending – the category of the budget that is annually appropriated by Congress and includes most federal spending on infrastructure, education, and scientific research – by more than half over the next decade. The result is deep cuts to all three of these important investments that provide the foundation for long-term economic growth.

Continue reading at Forbes.

 

 

Investment Heroes 2018: Encouraging and Diffusing Innovation Throughout the Economy

Despite the low unemployment rate, productivity growth is still stuck in slow gear. Non-farm business output per hour increased by 1.3 percent from the third quarter of 2017 to the third quarter of 2018 – well below the post- war average of 2.2 percent.1 Other countries around the world are also grappling with this slowdown in productivity growth.2 Productivity growth is the primary factor in boosting wages and living standards.

The continued lack of productivity growth arises from several causes. One important issue is a growth shortfall in the amount of capital relative to the amount of labor, where capital represents investment in equipment, structures, software, and other intellectual property.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates a measure it calls “capital intensity,” which measures the services produced by capital assets relative to the number of labor hours worked in the non-farm business sector. As shown in Figure 1, capital intensity has grown much more slowly over the past 10 years than in previous 10-year periods.

There has been much debate over the reasons for this shortfall. Some have suggested that corporate managers and stock market investors have become myopic and too focused on short-run returns. Others blame excessive regulation.

But, no matter the reason for the investment shortfall, we think it’s important to identify those companies that are bucking the trend. Starting with our 2012 “Investment Heroes” report, and continuing through this report, we have focused on identifying those companies making the largest capital investments in the United States. By expanding the capital stock, these companies are helping boost productivity and wages, and creating new jobs.

The Progressive Policy Institute’s (PPI) Investment Heroes report provides an exclusive estimate of domestic capital spending for major U.S. companies. Currently, accounting rules do not require companies to report their U.S. capital spending separately. To fill this gap in the data, we created a methodology using publicly-available financial statements from non-financial Fortune 150 companies to identify the top companies that were investing in the United States. That methodology, with small modifications, has been used in each year’s report since the first in 2012.

 

Kim for Governing, “The Rise of Do-Gooder Corporations”

Doing good pays dividends for both corporations and governments. Just ask Philadelphia.

Azavea is a 65-person software development company based in Philadelphia. Its business is helping governments and nonprofits use geospatial data to achieve various public goals, such as improving traffic flow or reducing pollution. Many would call Azavea a dream employer. It shares its profits with its workers, buys locally, pays generously for training and allows employees to spend 10 percent of their time on personal projects. “We’re very much a people-first, employees-first company,” says CEO Robert Cheetham.

A growing number of firms are, like Azavea, on the leading edge of corporate reforms to make American businesses better stewards of the environment and worker well-being. They are so-called benefit corporations, whose charter explicitly allows them to pursue purposes other than sheer profit. Many are also certified, meaning they’ve met strict standards set by the nonprofit B Lab. More than 2,600 certified “B Corps” operate globally, according to the group, including such well-known brands as ice cream maker Ben and Jerry’s, women’s clothier Eileen Fisher and crowdfunding platform Kickstarter.

Now, an increasing number of governments are facilitating the growth of benefit companies. At least 34 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws — most of them within the past six years — that allow companies to organize as legally recognized benefit corporations. Legal status confers a potentially significant advantage for a company: protection from shareholder liability if executives fail to maximize profit in pursuit of other goals.

Continue reading at Governing.

A Strong First Year for PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future

As the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future wraps up its first year, we want to thank everyone who followed and supported our work. Below you’ll find a compilation of our contributions to the public discourse in 2018.

Through op-eds, blog posts, media interviews, research reports, engagement with elected officials, and public forums organized in key battleground states, the Center drew much-needed attention to America’s interconnected problems of deteriorating public investment and soaring federal budget deficits. We fought back against Republican efforts to make these problems worse and challenged Democrats to counter them by offering a new progressivism that invests in our country without leaving the bill for future generations.

We concluded the year with a public forum in Iowa to kick off the 2020 presidential debate over fiscal issues in the nation’s first caucus state – and this is only the beginning. Now that we’ve made the case for a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth, we’re ready to offer concrete proposals for making it a reality.

In 2019, PPI will publish a series of specific policy recommendations to renew public investments in the foundation of our economy, modernize federal health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society, and enact pro-growth tax reform that raises the revenue necessary to support both of these critical government functions. We’re excited for the year ahead and hope you’ll continue to follow our work in 2019 and beyond.

 

Read Our Major Reports

Ending America’s Public Investment Drought
Ben Ritz and Brendan McDermott (12/19)

Defunding America’s Future: The Squeeze on Public Investment in the United States
Ben Ritz (10/15)

 

Watch Our Public Forums

Ending America’s Public Investment Drought – Des Moines, IA (12/19)
Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack
Former Iowa Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge
Iowa Rep. Chris Hall, Ranking Member on the House Appropriations Committee
Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future
Moderated by PPI President Will Marshall

Defunding America’s Future – Philadelphia, PA (11/19)
U.S. Rep. Madeline Dean (D-PA)
Dr. Robert Inman, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School
Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future
Moderated by David Thornburgh, CEO of Committee of Seventy

 

Check Out Our Op-Eds and Media Coverage

DC Think Tank Urging Iowans to Ask Presidential Candidates About Infrastructure
O. Kay Henderson, Radio Iowa (12/22)

A Fitting End for Disgraceful House Republicans
Ben Ritz, Forbes (12/22)

Social Security, Public Projects and Rural America with Tom Vilsack (Radio)
Michael Libbie, Insight on the Business Hour on News/Talk 1540 KXEL (12/20)

American Children are Getting a Raw Deal Under GOP Leadership
Brodi Fontenot, The Hill (12/20)

Top Democrats Host Policy Roundtable (TV)
ABC 5, Des Moines (12/19)

Trump Once Again Shows Contempt for Young Americans
Ben Ritz, Forbes (12/6)

Welcome to Post-Thrift America
Andrew Yarrow, RealClearPolicy (12/04)

Victorious Democrats Should Thank Young Voters by Funding America’s Future
Ben Ritz, Forbes (11/8)

Reality Check 10.17.18 (Radio)
Charles Ellison, WURD Radio Philadelphia (10/17)

Defend or Defund Our Future? (Radio)
Chase Hagaman, Facing the Future on NH News Radio WKXL (10/16)

Time to Get DC’s Finances Under Control
Paul Weinstein, RealClearPolicy (10/17)

The Deficit Is Heading to $1 Trillion. How Worried Should We Be?
Michael Rainey, The Fiscal Times (9/24)

Democrats Must Bridge the Generational Divide to Prevent Climate and Budget Crises
Paul Bledsoe and Ben Ritz, The Hill (7/18)

How Trump and Republicans are Damning Social Security and Medicare
Ben Ritz, NY Daily News (6/14)

Making Social Security’s Retirement Age Work for Workers
Andy Rotherham, The Hill (6/8)

Medicare is Running Out of Money. Democrats Want to Expand It
W. James Antle III, Washington Examiner (6/7)

The Deficit Debate
David Leonhardt, The New York Times (4/20)

The Parallel Universe of Trump’s Budget, Explained
Sam Petulla and Gregory Krieg, CNN (2/13)

Welcome to a New Era of Federal Spending
Sam Petulla, CNN (2/10)

12 of the Most Important Things in Congress’s Massive Spending Deal
Heather Long and Jeff Stein, The Washington Post (2/8)

 

Find More Analysis on the PPI Blog

Republicans Double Down on Deepening Deficits (9/13)

CBO Report Shows That We Really Can’t Afford All These Tax Cuts (8/9)

New Projections Make Clear We Can’t Afford the Trump Agenda (6/27)

Before Expanding Medicare, We Have to Pay for Current Beneficiaries (6/7)

Trustees Reports Highlight Challenges Facing Medicare and Social Security (6/6)

CBO Analysis Exposes Trump’s Faulty Fiscal Policy (5/30)

Are Democrats Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Part 2 (4/19)

A Tax Day Review of Trump’s “Tax Cuts” (4/17)

Are Democrats Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Yes, But… (4/16)

PPI Analysis of CBO’s 2018 Budget and Economic Outlook (4/10)

House GOP’s Balanced Budget Amendment is a Sham (4/10)

Even After Budget Deal, Discretionary Spending Remains Low (3/14)

New Analysis Highlights Dire Fiscal Situation (3/5)

Six Charts That Reveal the Absurdity of the Trump Budget (2/14)

 

See Our Press Releases

PPI Kicks Off 2020 Economic Debate with Iowa Fiscal Forum (12/19)

New Report: Washington is Crippling America’s Economic Future (10/15)

Social Security & Medicare Trustees Reports: A Reality Check for Expansion Advocates & Tax Cutters Alike (6/5)

New CBO Report Highlights the Cost of Trump’s First Year (4/9)

Statement on the Passing of Peter G. Peterson (3/20)

PPI Launches Center for Funding America’s Future (2/12)

Don’t Help GOP Budget Busters (2/8)

Ritz for Forbes, “A Fitting End For Disgraceful House Republicans”

This year concludes the same way it began: with a partial shutdown of the federal government. There is no doubt that President Donald Trump is primarily responsible for this shutdown – less than two weeks ago, during a nationally televised meeting in the Oval Office, he explicitly said so himself.

“If we don’t get what we want,” said Trump, “I will shut down the government. And I’ll tell you what, I am proud to shut down the government for border security, [Sen. Chuck Schumer]… I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it … I will take the mantle of shutting down.”

Not a whole lot of wiggle room there: this is clearly a Trump Shutdown. But the president was bolstered by support from his allies in the House Republican Conference and their retiring leader, House Speaker Paul Ryan. While the Senate did its job and unanimously passed a continuing resolution that would have kept the government open and prevented the shutdown, Ryan refused to allow a vote on similar legislation, allowing the electorally-disgraced House Republican majority to create one last pointless budget crisis on its way out the door.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Fontenot for The Hill, “American children are getting a raw deal under GOP leadership”

American children born today are getting a raw deal. As they come of age to drive or vote, they will be saddled with unimaginable levels of public debt because of the decisions their political leaders are making today.

I know this because the official keepers of the budget accounts for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — told us in vivid detail that public debts will swell, and a recent study shows this debt will overwhelm and constrain the future generations’ ability to make investment decisions available to current decision-makers and respond to unforeseen crises.

Recent policy choices unfortunately have constrained the ability of future generations to deal with unanticipated problems in their era. Reversing this problem will be difficult, but, as history has shown, it will come from a return to Democratic vision and leadership.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Mandel for NJ Spotlight, “It Would Be A Mistake to Make Brick-and-Mortar Retailers in NJ Accept Cash”

It would be better to go cashless, while creating new low-cost banking options for poor residents

Is cash a bane or a boon?

The underlying trends are clear. Across the country, from high-end salad chain Sweetgreen to the new Amazon Go stores, more and more retailers are going cashless as technology improves. For a company like Amazon, doing without cash means speeding or eliminating the checkout process, including getting rid of long lines at peak times. For small retailers, the advantages are fewer losses from cash theft and much simplified operations, especially in high-crime areas.

In response, New Jersey is considering new legislation that would require all brick-and-mortar stores to accept cash. Similar bills have been introduced in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia. Supporters say that such legislation is important to protect poor Americans who don’t have access to credit cards or bank accounts.

This move to lock in the status quo is a mistake. The shift to cashless stores is a positive for poor Americans and small retailers, if combined with a concerted effort to bring low-cost banking to poor Americans. Moreover, regulations requiring cash are likely to reduce the competitiveness of brick-and-mortar stores against e-commerce.

Continue reading at NJ Spotlight.

Yarrow for RealClearPolicy, “Welcome to Post-Thrift America”

How did we arrive at a new normal of indifference to living on borrowed money? Federal budget deficits are poised to eclipse $1 trillion in 2020 and may never fall below that level again. There was hardly a word about this once-hot issue among Democrats or Republicans running in the midterm elections. Similar problems of matching spending with revenues exist at the state level, where unfunded pension liabilities grow while taxes are cut.

At the individual household level, following an uptick in savings after the Great Recession, most Americans can’t or don’t care about saving or balancing spending and income. About 80 percent of the population carries debt, totaling about $13 trillion, and one in five households have zero or negative assets.

The transition to this new normal has been as much a cultural story as a political or economic one. Whether one speaks of “thrift,” “living within one’s means,” or “pay as you go,” these were long the dominant values and standard practices of both governments and families. Throughout U.S. history, Americans and their government generally spent no more than their income or revenues and, ideally, would save some money. Of course, there were exceptions — such as wars and emergencies, and for individuals, poverty and other hardships — that necessitated borrowing. Economically, saving and investment were underpinnings of successful capitalism, and, morally, profligacy was a sin. Those who spent extravagantly were shady characters, while responsible budgeting was a sign of moral rectitude.

Continue Reading at RealClearPolicy.

Ritz for Forbes, “Victorious Democrats Should Thank Young Voters By Funding America’s Future”

On Tuesday, Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures across the country thanks to record-breaking turnout among young voters. Now it is time for newly elected Democrats to stand up for the interests of their constituents by supporting an economic agenda that funds America’s future.

The reckless policies of the current administration, and many of its predecessors, have slashed critical public investments that most benefit young Americans while simultaneously burying them and future generations under a mountain of debt. In a recent report, the Progressive Policy Institute documents these trends and explores how these reckless policies could drain America’s economic strength and seriously harm young Americans for decades if no action is taken to change course.

Continue reading at Forbes.

Kim for Governing, “How ‘Opportunity Zones’ Could Transform Communities”

The new federal program could lure fresh investment to distressed areas. But the clock is ticking.

Twenty years ago, the rural hamlet of South Boston, Va., was a thriving blue-collar, middle-class community. Most of its residents were employed in manufacturing, such as at the nearby Burlington Industries textile plant and Russell Stover candy factory, or out in the tobacco fields.

Today, the once vast tobacco industry is largely derelict (China is now the world’s leading producer), and the Burlington plant and Russell Stover factory are closed. “We lost about $100 million in payroll out of this community over four years,” says South Boston Town Manager Tom Raab.

This is a familiar story for the nation’s rural areas, but Raab is optimistic about a turnaround. He is pinning his hopes, in part, on the new “opportunity zones” program passed in last December’s federal tax overhaul. It could generate billions in economic development for distressed communities like South Boston — provided they get the help they need.

Opportunity zones represent a breakthrough approach to community development. The program relies on an ingenious mechanism for spurring investment: Instead of tax credits or other traditional subsidies, investors are offered a temporary tax deferral for capital gains reinvested in designated opportunity zones. For investments held longer than 10 years, that deferral becomes forgiveness — a huge boon.

Continue reading at Governing.

Ben Ritz Discusses New PPI Report on Two Radio Interviews

Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, Ben Ritz, participated in two radio interviews this week to discuss his new report, Defunding America’s Future: The Squeeze on Public Investment in the United States. The report explains how short-sighted fiscal policy is undermining critical investments in education, infrastructure and scientific research that are integral to the long-term health of our economy. Read the full report here.

The first interview was on Facing the Future with host Chase Hagaman, which airs on New Hampshire’s WKXL radio station. Listen to the WKXL interview here.

The second interview was on Reality Check with host Charles Ellison, which airs on Philadelphia’s WURD radio station. Listen to the WURD interview here.

Weinstein for RealClearPolicy, “Time to Get DC’s Finances Under Control”

Once upon a time in Washington, D.C., a compulsive liar was in charge of the local government, the city’s legislature was beyond dysfunctional, and the District had debt as far as the eye could see. Today, a similar situation has returned to Washington, but this time it is the federal government, not the D.C. government, that has lost control over its ability to manage its finances.

In 1995, a Republican-led Congress worked with President Bill Clinton to get the District back on track. They created the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority — better known as the “Control Board.” The Board arguably saved D.C. from an economic collapse. Could a control board for the federal government do the same for America?

The D.C. Control Board was based on a model that had been successfully used elsewhere to help a number of jurisdictions facing fiscal and economic crisis. In 1978, after Cleveland became the first major city since the Great Depression to default on short-term notes, the Ohio legislature lent to the city to avert bankruptcy and created a state-run system for monitoring local government finances. In 1991, Pennsylvania helped Philadelphia overcome its budget crisis through the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, which exists to this day and has the power to review and approve the city’s five-year financial plans.

Continue reading at RealClearPolicy.

Republicans Double Down on Deepening Deficits

It’s official: House Republicans are campaigning on a pledge to increase the federal budget deficit. It was just 10 months ago that they enacted a package of ostensibly temporary tax cuts that is projected to increase deficits by roughly $2 trillion over the next decade. This week, they offered a series of proposals dubbed “Tax Reform 2.0” to expand upon and make permanent the first tax cut’s expiring provisions. Although the package is unlikely to become law in this Congress, this legislation sends a clear message to voters about the GOP’s main objective if they retain control after the midterm elections: more deficit-financed tax cuts.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the new tax cut package will add another $657 billion to budget deficits between 2019-2028. This score, however, understates the true cost of the legislation because of the time period analyzed. The original tax cuts are largely in place through 2025, so most of the new package’s costs don’t begin to materialize until 2026. The upshot is that although the $657 billion is technically a 10-year cost estimate, 96 percent of that cost is concentrated in just the last three years.

What would the true cost of “Tax Reform 2.0” be? The Tax Policy Center estimates it could cost nearly $4 trillion over the next 20 years – and that’s on top of the $2 trillion cost of the original tax-cut law. Over half of these additional tax cuts would go to benefit the richest tenth of Americans. The tax cut isn’t just larger for wealthy Americans in dollars – they would also see their after-tax incomes rise by over two percent, while Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution would only see their incomes rise by less than one percent.

And how does the GOP plan to pay for the enormous costs of their regressive tax proposals? They don’t. It was recently reported that when former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn asked President Trump how he would finance the administration’s budget deficits, Trump proposed to just run the presses — print money.” Congressional Republicans haven’t offered a serious alternative.

As PPI noted earlier this year, a deficit-financed tax cut is really no tax cut at all. Households that received a tax cut of less than $1,610 in 2018 are likely to lose more in the long-run than they will gain from those tax cuts, including most lower- and middle-income households. Perhaps it should be no surprise that these tax cuts are incredibly unpopular among non-Republicans.

When Republicans won their House majority in 2010, they campaigned against deficits and the implicit tax it imposes on future generations. Eight years later, as those same Republicans prepare to lose their majority, they’ve cravenly embraced the very things they were supposedly elected to oppose.

Alisha Gurani contributed to this post.

 

 

Kim for Governing, “When Cities Rely on Fines and Fees, Everybody Loses”

They’re a tempting alternative to raising taxes, but their long-term costs far outweigh the revenue they bring in.

Raising taxes is painful. That may be why, since 2010, 47 states and a number of cities have instead raised both civil and criminal fines and fees. These increases are often viewed as a conflict-free way to plug budget holes.

In the last decade, for example, New York City grew its revenues from fines by 35 percent, raking in $993 million in fiscal 2016 alone. The monies came largely from parking and red light camera violations, as well as stricter enforcement of “quality of life” offenses such as littering and noise. In California, routine traffic tickets now carry a multiplicity of revenue-boosting “surcharges.” As a result, the true price of a $100 traffic ticket is more like $490 — and up to $815 with late fees, according to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

This increasing reliance on fines and fees comes despite what we learned following the shooting in 2014 of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo. A federal investigation of the city’s police department subsequently revealed that as much as a quarter of the city’s budget was derived from fines and fees. Police officers, under pressure to “produce” revenue, extracted millions of dollars in penalties from lower-income and African-American residents. In 2017, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a follow-up report finding that the “targeting” of low-income and minority communities for fines and fees is far from unique to Ferguson.

Continue reading at Governing.