issue: Fiscal Policies

Marshall for the NY Daily News, “How Democrats can connect with middle America again: Advice from successful rural pols from left of center”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Washington Democrats employ legions of political consultants, entrail readers and data-crunchers to help them figure out how to sway voters. They could save a lot of money by listening instead to Democrats who win elections in red and purple states.

That’s the idea behind a trenchant new report that should be required reading for national party strategists. Despite its optimistic title, “Hope for the Heartland,” the study shines a pitiless light on how badly Democrats have lost touch with rural and working-class America.

Its authors are Rep. Cheri Bustos, a rising star in Congress who represents a mostly rural district in Illinois won by Donald Trump in 2016, and Robin Johnson, an acute observer of heartland politics who hosts a radio show in Iowa on the topic.

Continue reading at NY Daily News.

Yarrow for SF Chronicle, “If our children are so ‘precious,’ we must invest in them”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We often hear how “precious” a child is, what a “treasure” she is, and how our kids are “our greatest resource.” Neuroscientists tell us that ages 0-3 are the most critical years for cognitive, social and moral development. Economists and business leaders tell us that early childhood education offers one of the best lifetime returns on investment and guarantors of a prosperous economy.

Nonetheless, the United States ranks behind about 30 other rich nations in providing quality, affordable child care, and California is well behind states like Oklahoma and Florida. As Arne Duncan, former U.S. Secretary of Education, told the Atlantic: “I think we value our children less than other nations do. I don’t have an easier or softer or kinder way to say that.”

Three of the nation’s most pressing needs meet when it comes to caring for and educating young children, although they are often treated as separate issues:

•Nearly half of America’s 3- and 4-year-olds aren’t in preschool, and most young children from 0 to 5 years do not have quality child care or pre-kindergarten, compromising their academic and social development and later-in-life productivity as workers.

•Millions of parents cannot afford child care or preschool, forcing them — mostly mothers — either into the stressful “balancing” of work and young children, or to leave the workforce entirely.

•The 2 million child-care and preschool workers are paid abysmally (in California, on average, the annual income of child-care workers is $27,170), have little prestige, and often lack credentials certifying their competence.

Continue reading at SF Chronicle.

Happy Holidays from PPI

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute
It’s been a surreal political year, but PPI has much to celebrate this holiday season. Throughout 2017, we expanded our productive capacity and the scope of our political and media outreach significantly. For example, PPI organized 150 meetings with prominent elected officials; visited 10 state capitals and 10 foreign capitals, published an influential book and more than 40 original research papers, and hosted nearly 30 private salon dinners on a variety of topical issues.
Best of all, we saw PPI’s research, analysis, and innovative ideas breaking through the political static and changing the way people think about some critical issues, including how to revive U.S. economic dynamism, spread innovation and jobs to people and places left behind by economic growth, and modernize the ways we prepare young people for work and citizenship.
Let me give you some highlights:
  • This fall, David Osborne’s new book, Reinventing America’s Schools, was published on the 25th anniversary of the nation’s first charter school in Minnesota. David, who heads PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools project, documents the emergence of a new “21st Century” model for organizing and modernizing our public school system around the principles of school autonomy, accountability, choice, and diversity. David is just winding up a remarkable 20-city book tour that drew wide attention from education, political, and civic leaders, as well as the media. Because David is a great storyteller, as well as analyst, it’s a highly readable book that offers a cogent picture of a K-12 school system geared to the demands of the knowledge economy. It makes a great holiday gift!
  • Dr. Michael Mandel’s pioneering research on e-commerce and job creation also upended conventional wisdom and caught the attention of top economic commentators. Dr. Mandel, PPI’s chief economic strategist, found that online commerce has actually created more jobs in retail than it destroys, and that these new jobs (many in fulfillment centers in outlying areas) pay considerably better than traditional ones. His research buttresses the main premise of PPI’s progressive pro-growth agenda: that spreading digital innovation to the physical economy will create new jobs and businesses, raise labor productivity, and reduce inequality.
  • PPI challenged the dubious panacea of “free college” and proposed a progressive alternative – a robust system of post-secondary learning and credentials for the roughly 70 percent of young Americans who don’t get college degrees. PPI Senior Fellow Harry Holzer developed a creative menu of ways to create more “hybrid learning” opportunities combining work-based and classroom instruction. And PPI Senior Fellow Anne Kim highlighted the inequity of current government policies that subsidize college-bound youth (e.g., Pell Grants), but provide no help for people earning credentials certifying skills that employers value.
  • Building on last year’s opening of a PPI office in Brussels, we expanded our overseas work considerably in 2017. In January, I endeavored to explain the outcome of the U.S. election to shell-shocked audiences in London, Brussels, and Berlin. In April, we led our annual Congressional senior staff delegation to Paris, Brussels, and Berlin to engage European policymakers on the French presidential election and other U.S-E.U. issues, including international taxation, competition policy, and trade. PPI also took its message of data-driven innovation and growth to Australia, Brazil, Japan and a number of other countries.
Other 2017 highlights included a strategy retreat in February with two dozen top elected leaders to explore ideas for a new, radically pragmatic agenda for progressives; a Washington conference with our longtime friend Janet Napolitano (now President of the University of California system) on how to update and preserve NAFTA; public forums in Washington on pricing carbon, infrastructure, tax reform, and other pressing issues; creative policy reports on varied subjects; and a robust output of articles, op-eds, blogs, and social media activity.
I’m also happy to report many terrific additions to PPI in 2017. Rob Keast joined to manage our external relations and new policy development; Paul Bledsoe assumed a new role as Strategic Adviser as well as guiding our work on energy and climate policy; and Emily Langhorne joined as Education Policy Analyst. We will also be adding a fiscal project next year.
All this leaves us poised for a high-impact year in 2018. In this midterm-election year, our top priority will be crafting and building support for a new progressive platform — a radically pragmatic alternative to the political tribalism throttling America’s progress. That starts with new and better ideas for solving peoples’ problems that look forward, not backward, and that speak to their hopes and aspirations, not their anger and mistrust.
It’s a tall order, and we cannot succeed without your help and support. Thanks for all you have done over past years, and we look forward to working with you in 2018.
Happy holidays and New Year!

Kim for The Hill, “Let’s tax college endowments to pay for students’ education”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In 2016, the 50 richest universities in America owned $331 billion in endowment wealth, a figure roughly three times the size of California’s entire state budget last year — and ten times the estimated net worth of President Donald Trump. Seventy-five percent of that wealth was held by less by four percent of schools, including such elite institutions as Harvard University, whose endowment was $34.5 billion in 2016), Stanford ($22.4 billion), Princeton ($22.2 billion) and Yale ($25.4 billion).

These outsized sums made college endowments a ripe target in the House GOP’s tax plan, which proposes a 1.4 percent excise tax on the nation’s largest endowments. Though only about 70 schools would be subject to the levy as currently contemplated, it would raise an estimated $3 billion over 10 years.

As a piggy bank for financing lower personal and corporate tax rates, an endowment tax is a terrible idea, and colleges are right to protest. But as a mechanism for correcting some of the current inequities in higher education, endowment reform is well worth pursuing.

Continue reading at The Hill. 

Expansion of the Joint Employer Doctrine Fails to Strike the Right Balance

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Policymakers across the United States are struggling to figure out how to adapt to swift changes in the American workforce. So-called “alternative work arrangements,” for example, are growing: in 2015, 15.8 percent of workers were independent contractors, temporary workers, contracted workers, or “gig” workers—a 50 percent increase in just a decade. Yet some efforts at adaptation—such as expansion of the “joint employer” doctrine—may do more harm than good. PPI is committed to helping find solutions that balance worker protection with business productivity and investment and the expansion of the joint employer doctrine fails to strike that balance. We must figure out a better way forward that boosts economic dynamism without sacrificing worker interests.

At the end of July, the Save Local Business Act was introduced into the House of Representatives. The bill, with three Democratic cosponsors among over three dozen Republicans, aims to narrow the expanded definition of “joint employer” promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2015. This elicited immediate praise from business groups—particularly those associated with franchises—and opposition from unions and other groups advocating for worker rights.

The joint employer doctrine is used by the NLRB and courts in determining legal responsibility for issues such as overtime pay when more than one employer is involved. If a bank, for example, contracts with a company to provide janitors to clean the bank facilities, the janitors are employees of the contract firm, not the bank. Yet, if the bank has some level of control over of the janitors’ wages and hours, it could be deemed a “joint employer” and would be responsible for appropriate legal compliance.

Not incidentally, the joint employer doctrine is central in shaping the ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining. Contract workers, temporary workers, and franchise employees—all of whom are affected by the joint employer doctrine—are difficult to unionize. Employees of franchise locations—fast-food restaurants, for example—are technically employees of the franchisee (the local operator), not the franchisor (the national brand). The entire purpose of the franchising model is to allow the franchisor to focus on brand and system, and leave the franchisee to focus on operations and local context, including employment.

Under the expanded joint employer doctrine of the NLRB, however, it is possible that both the franchisee and the franchisor could be considered employers of the workers at each individual franchise location. This “could fundamentally change business in the United States by destroying the franchise model.”

Until the 1980s, the NLRB threshold for a joint employer finding was “direct or indirect control” over working conditions. This was a fairly broad doctrine and, in certain circumstances, could be used to find that employees were subject to “control” by more than one employer. Nonetheless, the NLRB joint employer standard remained more modest than definitions used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Beginning in the 1980s, the NLRB gradually narrowed the definition to “direct and immediate” control over employment issues. The change from “indirect” to “immediate” had large implications in where the joint-employer line was drawn. If the bank “shares or codetermines” the conditions of employment of the contracted janitors, and “meaningfully affects” their hiring, firing, supervision, etc., the company could be a joint employer. Now, the NLRB says, no longer is “direct and immediate control” required—even the possession of authority to direct third-party employees is sufficient, regardless of whether the authority is exercised.

These subtleties in language and reliance on factual findings are classic examples of legalese, but cases involving worker rights and business interests frequently turn on choice of words and how those words are put into practice.

Business groups do not welcome a broader definition. Especially as it pertains to franchise arrangements, the more expansive standard could open up franchisors to greater liability and more attempts at collective bargaining. Already, we have seen arguments to apply the extended joint employer doctrine to other areas, such as student athletes. A challenge to the NLRB’s expansive interpretation is currently pending in front of the D.C. Circuit, and it is expected that the NLRB under President Trump will work to narrow the standard. In the Republican-controlled Congress, the Save Local Business Act could find easy passage and, at the state level, legislatures are being lobbied to pass laws saying that franchisors cannot be considered joint employers.

One problem is the likely response from franchisors to the expanded NLRB standard—in particular, we may see reduced business dynamism. Franchising is an engine of entrepreneurship in the United States, with independent operators who, despite the assistance of national brands, assume plenty of financial risk themselves. At the same time, we have seen the rise of large franchising operations that own hundreds of franchises across the country. Not surprisingly, large franchising operations are better able to comply with employment laws than small, single-operator franchisees. Faced with the new incentive structure of the expanded joint employer doctrine, franchisors will have a clear preference against smaller franchisees in favor of the larger organizations. This will make it much harder for new entrepreneurs to enter business through franchising, further raising barriers of entry for business creation.

The NLRB and other public agencies have the unenviable task of modifying law and policy to keep up with shifting employment arrangements, in an environment of stagnant wages for many workers, geographic concentration of economic rewards, and concerns about entire occupational categories being lost to automation. As mentioned, “alternative work” is growing. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that the “contingent workforce,” depending on the definitions used, could be anywhere from five to 40 percent of the total labor force. More people are receiving income from multiple sources, which includes new online and on-demand platforms. These changes have prompted calls for new legal classifications, such as the “independent worker” category proposed by the Hamilton Project two years ago.

Confronted with these challenges, expanding the joint employer doctrine is perhaps an understandable attempt to try to help workers cope. The fastest-growing type of alternative work arrangements is “workers provided by contract firms,” precisely those at the core of the joint employer doctrine. Yet we also need to help policymakers and businesses think creatively about other ways to manage and adapt to these challenges, as they will only increase in significance. In the face of a “fissured workplace,” how can policymakers help workers and businesses adapt and succeed together?

In managing these changes, we must ensure adequate worker protection and representation while also supporting (or at least not hindering) businesses to pursue innovation and productivity. Policymaking should be guided by certain principles, among which might be the following.

  • Clarity and certainty. Any standard leaves room for interpretation (and litigation), but workers and firms need to have clear ideas about where they stand regarding rights and responsibilities.
  • Get the incentives right. Policies should minimize the amount of “gaming” that might go on by firms in trying to avoid legal compliance. This doesn’t mean the presumption should be that all firms will act badly—policymakers need to pay attention to the incentives they establish.
  •  New ways for workers to organize and improve. Despite the NLRB’s presumption, traditional unions may not be the best adaptive form of organizing in the modern workplace, and new Internet platforms have arisen to help fill the gap. Policy should facilitate these, but also focus on how new organizing tools can support learning and skill upgrading among workers, not just collective bargaining.
  • Informational equity and transparency. As the Roosevelt Institute has coherently outlined, employees in more sectors are subject to “opaque algorithms” that determine wages, scheduling, evaluation, and so on. Giving workers more transparency and control over this information will reduce asymmetry and empower workers to better manage their careers.

Most of the American labor force is still characterized by traditional employment, but new forms of work are growing rapidly, especially in sectors where low-wage and high-turnover work predominates. Addressing this challenge is a major priority, and we need to find ways that policy can jointly advance the interests of workers and firms.

How Ecommerce Creates Jobs and Reduces Income Inequality

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The last retail revolution, the rise of the big box store, was not a good thing for the typical sales clerk or cashier.

“Warehouse clubs” and “supercenters” started popping up everywhere in the late 1980s. Retail productivity as measured by the government doubled from 1987 to 2007, as this new retail format was more efficient than traditional department stores and mom-and-pop operations, many of which were pushed out of business. Nevertheless, average real wages for
retail workers actually fell from 1987 to 2007, and the pay gap between retail workers and the rest of the workforce widened.

Now comes the ecommerce revolution. Given the bad experience of workers with the last retail revolution, it’s only natural to worry that this one will have an equally bad effect. As of the new first quarter of 2017, ecommerce has less than 9% of retail sales. What will happen to brick-and-mortar retail workers as 10% or 20%of sales move onto the Internet? Are we facing
a retail “apocalypse” that will destroy jobs that employ 15% of the American work.



			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Gerwin for The Hill, “The bitter harvest of Trump’s protectionist stance”

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
Donald Trump is infatuated with the 2016 election map, which underscores his dominance in red-coded rural counties. Candidate Trump repeatedly promised to “take care” of America’s rural voters who, in return, provided some of his biggest vote margins.


It’s ironic, then, that on issues from budgets to healthcare, America’s heartland stands to become an early and particular victim of Trump’s misplaced priorities. Nowhere is this more evident than with Trump’s wrongheaded, protectionist approach to trade.


Continue reading at The Hill.


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
The Economic Impact of Data: Why Data Is Not Like Oil

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
The saying “data is the new oil” is at times referenced by analysts working to assess whether our increasingly digital and data-driven world generates positive impact for our economy and society. However, this saying is imprecise. Data should not be compared to oil – it is not a scarce commodity, is nonrival, and cannot be monopolized.


With regards to privacy, the analogy further weakens. While regulations for traditional commodities like oil seek to protect individual rights to ownership of resources (an individual’s oil), the same regulations for the data-driven sector can have negative impact on the economy overall. This is because, when it comes to data, economic value creation is driven by the analysis of data in conjunction with other information. Thus, laws that quite rightfully protect individual rights to data can be at odds with innovation and economic growth.


overview: Power-of-Data-One-Pager




			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Holzer for The Hill, “The Path to a Strong Middle Class Moves Forward, Not Backward”

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
To be elected president, Donald Trump rode a wave of anger and disillusionment among white non-college voters who are bitterly disappointed over their recent economic experiences and hopeless about their futures.


Trump exploited their anger brilliantly, feeding them false hopes that he would restore their lost jobs in manufacturing and mining, thus resurrecting the pathways that once enabled Americans with only a high school education to join the middle class.




But this plan will fail. The new digital technologies and market forces that enable goods to be manufactured much more cheaply by machines or foreign workers cannot and should not be reversed; any remaining manufacturing jobs will be far fewer in number than before and require much more technical skill than most workers in these industries ever had.


Continue reading at The Hill. 


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Building a New Middle Class in the Knowledge Economy

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
The election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016 has made policymakers and politicians in the U.S. much more aware of an important demographic group – the white working class – than before.


We have ignored their plight and their concerns for far too long, and have grown much too complacent about the extent to which they have fallen behind more-educated groups and shared insufficiently in the economic growth we’ve experienced in the past few decades.


Of course, even before the election, labor market analysts and demographers had been discovering that the economic and social outcomes we observe among a large group of less-educated Americans – particularly men with high school or less education – were stagnating or deteriorating.




			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Marshall for The Daily Beast: Donald Trump and the Republicans Shotgun Marriage Is Off to a Rocky Start

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
Many Congressional Republicans regard Donald Trump as an interloper, so it’s not surprising that their political marriage of convenience is already showing signs of strain. They’re bickering over health care now, but the deeper source of discord is the basic incompatibility of conservatism and populism.


During the campaign, Trump echoed Republicans in caricaturing Obamacare as a “disaster” that demands immediate repeal. Yet he also distanced himself from GOP dogma by assuring working class voters that he wouldn’t take away their health coverage and let them “die in the streets.”


Continue reading at The Daily Beast.


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Berg for The Hill: Why AmeriCorps is a program conservatives should love

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
AmeriCorps is the conservative program that conservatives love to hate.


AmeriCorps, a domestic Peace Corps, is a federally funded program that provides modest living allowances and college aid to Americans who perform significant amounts of structured community service by responding to natural disasters, boosting education, bolstering public safety, fighting poverty, improving health, helping the environment and protecting homeland security.


AmeriCorps benefits go only those who work hard. Grants are awarded mostly by states. The vast majority of its participants work in nonprofit groups (not government agencies). And the program generates hundreds of millions of private-sector matching funds.


In theory, conservatives should embrace AmeriCorps as a model of how to boost self-reliance and empower communities.


Read more on The Hill.


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Reforma Tributaria y la Econom’a App: El Ejemplo de Colombia

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
En los Estados Unidos hemos estado, con mucha razón, obsesionados con el resultado de las elecciones presidenciales. Pero el mundo sigue girando. Por ejemplo, la semana pasada Colombia ratificó un tratado de paz histórico entre el gobierno y el movimiento rebelde. PPI tuvo el privilegio de estar en Bogotá este octubre, donde realizamos un evento sobre la Economía App, el cual fue muy difundido, y describió cómo la Economía App de Colombia ha generado más de 80.000 puestos de trabajo.


Hay que felicitar al presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos por su éxito. Al mismo tiempo, él ha presentado una importante reforma tributaria que simplifica el sistema de impuestos corporativos mientras que recauda nuevos fondos. No es sorpresa que la medida de reforma tributaria sea controversial. Por ejemplo, las franquicias de la cadena de sandwiches Subway reclaman que el incremento en los impuestos puede terminar con el negocio.


De mayor impacto, la reforma tributaria de Santos afecta directamente al sector digital de Colombia y en particular a la Economía App. Incrementaría el IVA en dispositivos (teléfonos, tablets y computadoras) del 16 al 19% – solo las tablets y las computadoras menos costosas estarían exentas del IVA. La reforma ialzaría el IVA sobre los servicios móviles de datos del 16 al 19% y agregaría un 4% adicional de impuestos al consumo (un total de 23%). Finalmente, la reforma tributaria impondría un IVA sobre todo el contenido y servicios digitales que sean provistos por proveedores de origen extranjero.


Estas medidas tributarias podrían potencialmente restringir la continuación del crecimiento de la Economía App de Colombia, la cual depende de dispositivos asequibles y el banda ancha móvil, y del acceso a apps provenientes de cualquier parte del mundo. Más aún, esto podría afectar negativamente la competitividad en el resto de la economía, ya que la Economía App es mucho más que solo entretenimiento y aplicaciones de juegos. De hecho, se desarrollan y usan aplicaciones por grandes multinacionales, bancos, compañías de medios audiovisuales, tiendas minoristas, y gobiernos.


La importancia a futuro de la Economía App va incluso más lejos. Citamos de nuestra publicación de octubre 2016, «Siguiendo la Economía App de Colombia»:


Uno de los cambios más grandes que se aproximan es el Internet de las Cosas, el cual es el uso de Internet para ayudar a controlar objetos físicos y nuestro entorno físico. Los agricultores usarán cada vez más aplicaciones que ayuden a su producción agricultural, los enfermeros y doctores usarán aplicaciones para administrar el cuidado de los pacientes, y los productores usarán aplicaciones para controlar sus fábricas.


A nivel global, los países exitosos digitalmente como Vietnam y China aplican tasas de IVA relativamente bajas a los datos y servicios móviles para estimular el uso (Vea este informe reciente sobre la inclusión digital y los impuestos sobre el sector móvil).


Finalmente, como hemos mencionado en nuestra publicación de octubre de 2016:


Si los legisladores son serios con respecto a fomentar un ecosistema dinámico para nuevas empresas y la Economía App, entonces continuar con las políticas que apoyen la Economía App será lo que ayudará a Colombia a participar en la revolución móvil global como productor más que como consumidor. Aplicar demasiadas restricciones costosas sobre la Economía App de Colombia podría desviar el crecimiento hacia otro lugares. (énfasis añadido)


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Japan’s App Economy

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
The introduction of Apple’s iPhone in 2007 initiated a profound and transformative new economic innovation. Today, less than a decade later, there are 4 billion smartphone subscriptions globally, an unprecedented rate of adoption for a new technology. Mobile data usage is rising at 55% per year, a stunning number that shows its revolutionary impact.


More than just hardware, the smartphone also inaugurated up a new era for software developers around the world. Apple’s launch of the App Store in 2008, followed by Android Market (now Google Play) and other app stores, created a way for iOS and Android developers to write mobile applications from anywhere in the world, with the ability to sell and distribute them globally.


This paper examines the economic impact of the App Economy in Japan. We estimate that App Economy employment in Japan totaled 579,000 as of April 2016.


 




 


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
Weinstein for RCP: Making “Fiscal Space” for the Clinton Agenda

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
POLICIES FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. PART 8: FEDERAL BUDGET


This is the eighth in a series on the major policy ideas — from Left and Right — that should guide the next presidential administration’s agenda. (For the opposing view, see James C. Capretta, “Fiscal Policy After the Election.“)


Hillary Clinton’s agenda of investing in people and infrastructure is an important step to righting America’s economic ship. And, to her credit, her agenda is generally offset by proposals to close tax loopholes and tax hikes on higher income individuals. But it is very unlikely that Congress will sign on to over a trillion in new spending to be paid for solely with new taxes and a small increase in the deficit, even if Democrats somehow regain control not only of the Senate, but also the House. That’s why, if elected, Mrs. Clinton will need to embrace the moment and work to enact a comprehensive deficit reduction package (including tax and entitlement reform) that will create the “fiscal space” for her investment agenda.


Fortunately, once this election is over, the fiscal policy debate is likely to reignite and get a lot hotter, creating a window for a big budget deal that could also serve as a vehicle for her policy agenda. The continuing resolution keeping the federal government open will expire in early December, likely to be followed by another short-term extension to get the government through the Inauguration. In February, the new president will submit the administration’s annual budget for 2018. Then comes March and the expiration date for the debt-ceiling deal cut in 2015. Finally, come October 1 2017, sequestration will rear its ugly head again when the two-year budget cap increase runs out.


Continue Reading at RealClearPolicy.


			


	

			




			
				


	

		
CNN: The problem with Obama’s budget

				

			Posted on  by The Progressive Policy Institute		

			


	

		
The $4 trillion budget President Barack Obama sent Congress on Monday is his blueprint for reviving “middle class opportunity.” Liberals are thrilled by the redistributive thrust of the president’s budget — it would hit affluent Americans with a battery of new tax hikes, totaling $2 trillion over the next decade, and use the proceeds to finance substantial tax cuts for low and middle income families.


However, this has, of course, scandalized tax-averse congressional Republicans, who echo House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan in denouncing the Obama budget as an exercise in “envy economics.”


Given the partisan stalemate in Washington, many pundits therefore view the White House budget as a purely political statement intended to frame the 2016 presidential debate. Next, the GOP Congress will produce a conservative alternative, and each side will spend the next two years accusing the other of waging class warfare.


Except that the federal government actually does need a budget, especially one that reinforces the economy’s gathering momentum. The one thing both parties seem to agree on is that reversing middle class stagnation is the nation’s top priority. What America needs more than anything else is a long stretch of robust economic growth, something we have not seen since the 1990s, when both the growth and unemployment rates averaged about 4 percent a year.


Continue reading at CNN.