Repairing Credit: The Right Way to Fix a Broken System

If you think your credit report is accurate, there is a good chance you are wrong. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), one in five Americans has a potentially material error in their credit file, and one of the biggest contributors is medical bills—with half of all medical bills containing an error.

In fact, mistakes on credit reports have become so pervasive that around a third of all complaints filed annually to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) resulted from problems with consumer credit reports.

Credit report errors are a serious threat to the financial well-being of American families. As Senator Elizabeth Warren has noted, “credit reports regularly contain errors that can make it harder for families to access credit, find jobs, and get housing.” And as many consumers know all too well, it’s very difficult to get those errors corrected.” (1)

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the company that furnished the information to the credit bureau must conduct an investigation to verify the information and correct a mistake, if they find one. Unfortunately, consumers who want to try to fix mistakes on their credit report face three daunting obstacles.

First, the system put into place by the credit reporting agencies heavily favors creditors and other data furnishers. Credit bureaus almost exclusively depend on lenders (such as banks, credit unions, credit card providers, and mortgage underwriters).

Consumers contacted the credit reporting agencies approximately eight million times in 2011 to initiate a credit dispute. But only a small fraction of those disputes was resolved internally by credit bureau staff. According to the CFPB, 85 percent of credit report disputes are passed on to data furnishers (the lenders) to investigate and resolve. (2) Unfortunately, in most cases the disputes are then shelved unless the consumer perseveres.

Second, the credit report agencies earn their profits by providing services such as credit checks to the very entities that provide the data used to create the credit reports – banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, retailers, and other businesses that provide credit. This creates a serious conflict of interest.

Third, despite several notable efforts to try to empower consumers, trying to correct errors on your credit report is still tedious, confusing, and time consuming.

CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES

Because the system is rigged against them, many consumers turn to credit counseling agencies or credit repair companies. The dispute system designed to help consumers fix the problem favors the position of the debt collector over the consumer. Specifically, the credit bureau is only legally required to check with the creditor or debt collector and ask them whether they stand by their claim. As long as the creditor says you owe money, the dispute is resolved in their favor. As the National Consumer Law Center concludes: “Credit bureaus have little economic incentive to conduct proper disputes or improve their investigations.” (3)

Credit counseling agencies are typically a free resource from nonprofit financial education organizations that review your finances, debt and credit reports with the goal of teaching you to improve and manage your financial situation.

A credit repair company is a firm that offers to improve your credit in exchange for a fee. Unfortunately, the quality of these firms varies greatly. Some credit repair firms are highly reputable and follow best practices. Unfortunately, a significant cohort of credit repair firms are not good actors and, in some cases, have committed outright fraud. In 2016 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that “more than half of people who submitted complaints with the CFPB about credit repair chose the issue ‘fraud or scam’ to describe their complaints.”

There are some telltale signs for consumers trying to separate the bad actors from legitimate credit repair firms. Companies should be avoided that:

  • Demand an upfront payment.
  • Don’t provide a written agreement that includes cancellation rights for consumers.
  • Guarantee they’ll raise your credit score or fix an error.
  • Have multiple complaints against them with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the attorney general’s office in the state where they operate.
  • Suggest they can remove legitimate negative information.
  • Offer to create a new credit profile based on a new employer identification number, rather than your Social Security number.

In contrast, responsible credit repair companies not only follow federal and state law but also:

  • Offer a free consultation
  • Have a track record and consistently solid reviews from past clients.
  • Have an attorney on staff.
  • Are licensed, bonded and insured.

WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?

To protect consumers, some policymakers have suggested new regulations to further police the credit repair industry. They note that credit repair firms don’t do anything someone with a bad credit report couldn’t do on their own. Anyone can dispute credit errors on their own behalf. But the Do-It-Yourself approach can be dauntingly complicated and time-consuming for harried families.

In essense, paying for credit repair assistance is really no different than paying an accountant or purchasing software to do your taxes – something 90 percent of Americans do according to the Internal Revenue Service.

It is important to note that there is already existing legislation to regulate the credit repair system. The Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) was signed into law in 1996 to protect consumers from the unscrupulous practices commonly used by several credit scammers.

Because of CROA, credit repair organizations are not permitted to misrepresent the services they provide, including guaranteeing the removal of negative credit listings. Credit repair organizations are also not permitted to attempt to create a “new” credit file or advise you to lie about your credit history. The Act also bars companies offering credit repair services from demanding advance payment, gives consumers certain contract cancellation rights as well as the right to sue a credit repair organization that violates CROA. (4)

CROA is a sensible law, and despite criticisms that it does not go far enough in regulating the credit repair industry, the law does provide consumers with protections against bad actors in the credit repair sector without eliminating legitimate credit repair firms. CROA needs strengthening, not in the form of new regulations but rather more effective enforcement.

Under CROA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary enforcement body at the federal level. The problem is the FTC is severely underfunded and understaffed. In a Senate hearing last year Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter said the FTC’s staff level is 50 percent below its level at the beginning of the Reagan administration in 1981. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) agreed the FTC needs more resources and is “understaffed.” (5)

As Table 1 confirms, FTC staffing levels dropped dramatically during the 1980s and have never really recovered. Yet, over the same time, the responsibilities of the agency have dramatically changed and expanded. Today the FTC has to address some 2.7 million complaints a year in areas from debt collection, to identify theft, to imposter scams. (6)

Better enforcement of CROA would obviate the need to pile on new rules. Unfortunately, in fact, Congress has added to the FTC’s workload even as its workforce has shrunk. The simplest solution is to provide the FTC with additional resources dedicated to enforcing CROA and protecting consumers from those credit repair companies that have acted fraudulently or in bad faith.

To pay for this increase in supervisors, a small annual fee could be placed on the credit reporting agencies (Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian). To create an incentive for these agencies to be more responsive to consumer complaints about credit reporting agencies, the fee could be lowered or raised in synchronization with the number of consumer complaints about their credit reports.

OTHER REMEDIES

Another approach to fixing the current system is to go to the source of the problem, eliminating some of the causes for the extraordinary amount of errors made by the credit reporting industry. As Aaron Klein of the Brookings Institution has noted, there are three major reasons why credit scores are so inaccurate: “size, speed, and economic incentives of the system.”

One way to change the incentive structure would be to create some consequences for credit rating companies that frequently give lenders inaccurate data about borrowers. Lawmakers could consider legislation that would penalize credit reporting agency error rates above a certain level. Klein’s approach would use a random sample method (5 to 10 percent of complaints) to review credit rating firms’ performance. Another approach would be to grade the credit bureaus on their error and response rates.

CONCLUSION

While it is tempting to lump all credit repair firms into the same basket, many of these firms act in good faith and follow CROA to the letter of the law. Yet there is no doubt that a significant number of these companies are misleading consumers and sometimes acting fraudulently. If lawmakers really want to crack down on these bad actors, however, the first step should be strengthening enforcement of existing law.

Otherwise, spawning new laws and regulations would likely enmesh all credit repair firms in new layers of regulatory complexity and compliance burdens, making it even harder for consumers to detect and correct errors on their credit reports. In CROA we have the consumer protection law we need, now it’s time to focus on oversight and enforcement.

[gview file=”https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CreditFinal.pdf”]

(1)  Brian Schatz Press Release: “Following Equifax Breach, Schatz, Warren, McCaskill, Colleagues Reintroduce Legislation to Help Consumers Catch And Correct Credit Report Errors,” September 11, 2017

(2)  Kelly Dilworth, “Consumer watchdog report details credit bureaus’ work,” Creditcard.com, December 13, 2013

(3)  Aaron Klein, “The Real Problem with Credit Reports is the Astounding Number of Errors,” Brookings Institution, September 28, 2017

(4) 15 USC Chapter 41, Subchapter II-A: Credit Repair Organizations

(5) Kate Patrick, “FTC Asks for More Control Over Big Tech, Privacy Issues,” Insidesources.com, November 30, 2018

(6)  Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Releases Annual Summary of Complaints Reported by Consumers,” March 1, 2018

(7)  Aaron Klein, “The Real Problem with Credit Reports is the Astounding Number of Errors,” Brookings Institution, September 28, 2017

(8)  Ibid

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.