Let’s hope special counsel Robert Mueller gets to the bottom soon of Donald Trump’s strange dalliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The plot thickened last week as the GOP-led Senate narrowly rejected a Democratic bid to prevent the administration from lifting sanctions on Russian oligarch and Putin crony Oleg Deripaska, who also did business with Paul Manafort, Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager.
Once again, President Trump appears to be bending over backward to curry favor with Putin. His infinite tolerance of Russia’s interference in U.S. politics and its well-documented online “malign influence” campaign stands in weird contrast to his churlish behavior toward America’s actual friends.
Trump routinely denigrates America’s oldest and strongest allies in Europe as trade cheaters and security freeloaders. A small but telling example has recently come to light: The State Department last year quietly downgraded the diplomatic status of the Delegation of the European Union to the United States.
Congratulations on your election to the U.S. House of Representatives! In addition to winning your own race, you are part of something larger – the first wave of a progressive resurgence in U.S. politics.
The midterm elections gave U.S. voters their first opportunity to react to the way Donald Trump has conducted himself in America’s highest office. Their verdict was an emphatic thumbs down. That’s an encouraging sign that our democracy’s antibodies are working to suppress the populist virus of demagoguery and extremism.
Now that Democrats have reclaimed the people’s House, what should they do with it? Some are tempted to use it mainly as a platform for resisting Trump and airing “unapologetically progressive” ideas that have no chance of advancing before the 2020 elections. We here at the Progressive Policy Institute think that would be huge missed opportunity.
If the voters increasingly are disgusted with their dissembling and divisive president, they seem even more fed up with Washington’s tribalism and broken politics. For pragmatic progressives, the urgent matter at hand is not to impeach Trump or to embroil the House in multiple and endless investigations. It’s to show Democrats are determined to put the federal government back in the business of helping Americans solve their problems.
We think the House Democratic Class of 2018 should adopt this simple mantra: “Get things done.” Tackle the backlog of big national problems that Washington has ignored: exploding deficits and debt; run-down, second-rate infrastructure; soaring health and retirement costs; climate change and more. And yes, getting things done should include slamming the brakes on Trump’s reckless trade wars, blocking GOP efforts to strip Americans of health care, as well as repealing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
PPI, a leading center for policy analysis and innovation, stands ready to help. We’re developing an extensive “Do Something” Agenda. Today, we are releasing the first in a series of concrete, actionable ideas designed expressly for Democrats who come to Washington to solve problems, not just to raise money and smite political enemies.
As you get settled into your new office, we’ll look for opportunities to acquaint you and your staff with these pragmatic, common-sense initiatives, and to discuss other ways we might be of service to you. That’s what we’re here for.
Regards,
Will Marshall President Progressive Policy Institute
First and foremost, it’s time for Congress to start doing its job on trade. A key step is enacting the Trade Authority Protection (TAP) Act. This balanced legislation would rein in Trump’s abuse of delegated trade powers, require greater presidential accountability, and enable Congress to nullify irresponsible tariffs and trade restrictions.
For the last two decades, different versions of net neutrality have bounced between Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the courts – and most recently the states – but the issue remains unresolved.
It is time for Congress to solve this problem for good by enacting a strong, pro-consumer net neutrality law – an outcome that is politically possible even in this era of maximalist gridlock and deeply divided government, given the broad consensus that has formed around the vital issue of ensuring an open internet.
The number of large U.S. manufacturing facilities has dropped by more than a third since 2000, devastating many communities where factories were the lifeblood of the local economy.
One promising way to revive America’s manufacturing might is not by going big but by going small – and going local. Digitally-assisted manufacturing technologies, such as 3D printing, have the potential to launch a new generation of manufacturing startups producing customized, locally-designed goods in a way overseas mega-factories can’t match. To jumpstart this revolution, we need to provide local manufacturing entrepreneurs with access to the latest technologies to test out their ideas. The Grassroots Manufacturing Act would create federally-supported centers offering budding entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized firms access to the latest 3D printing and robotics equipment.
As many as 4.4 million U.S. jobs are going unfilled due to shortages of workers with the right skills. Many of these opportunities are in so-called “middle-skill” occupations, such as IT or advanced manufacturing, where workers need some sort of post-secondary credential but not a four-year degree.
Expanding access to high-quality career education and training is one way to help close this “skills gap.” Under current law, however, many students pursuing short-term career programs are ineligible for federal financial aid that could help them afford their education. Pell grants, for instance, are geared primarily toward traditional college, which means older and displaced workers – for whom college is neither practicable nor desirable – lose out. Broadening the scope of the Pell grant program to shorter-term, high-quality career education would help more Americans afford the chance to upgrade their skills and grow the number of highly trained workers U.S. businesses need.
America’s massive health care industry faces three major challenges: how to cover everyone, reduce costs, and increase productivity. Telehealth – the use of technology to help treat patients remotely – may help address all three. Telehealth reduces the need for expensive real estate and enables providers to better leverage their current medical personnel to provide improved care to more people.
Despite its enormous potential, however, telehealth has hit legal snags over basic questions: who can practice it, what services can be delivered, and how it should be reimbursed. As is the case with any innovation, policymakers are looking to find the right balance between encouraging new technologies and protecting consumers – or, in this case, the health of patients.
Telehealth policy has come a long way in recent years, with major advances in the kinds of services that are delivered. Yet a simple change in Medicare policy could take the next step to increase access and encourage adoption of telehealth services. Currently, there are strict rules around where the patient and provider must be located at the time of service – these are known as “originating site” requirements – and patients are not allowed to be treated in their homes except in very special circumstances. To expand access to Telehealth, Congress could add the patient’s home as an originating site and allow Medicare beneficiaries in both urban and rural settings to access telehealth services in their homes.
As many as 41 million Americans live in “higher education deserts” – at least half an hour’s drive from the nearest college or university and with limited access to community college. Many of these deserts are in rural America, which is one reason so much of rural America is less prosperous than it deserves to be.
The lack of higher education access means fewer opportunities for going back to school or improving skills. A less educated workforce in turn means communities have a tougher time attracting businesses and creating new jobs. Congress should work to eradicate higher education deserts. In particular, it can encourage new models of higher education – such as “higher education centers” and virtual colleges – that can fill this gap and bring more opportunity to workers and their communities. Rural higher education innovation grants are one potential way to help states pilot new approaches.
Regulation plays a critical role in refereeing competition in a free market economy. But there’s a problem: Each year, Congress piles new rules upon old, creating a thick sludge of regulations – some obsolete, repetitive, and even contradictory – that weighs down citizens and businesses. In 2017, the Code of Federal Regulations swelled to a record 186,374 pages, up 19 percent from just a decade before. PPI proposes a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), modeled on the highly successful Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for closing obsolete military installations. Like the BRAC process, the proposed RIC would examine old rules and present Congress with a package of recommendations for an up-or-down vote to eliminate or modify outdated rules.
Jumpstarting U.S. production and purchase of Electric Vehicles (EVs) would produce an unprecedented set of benefits, including cleaner air and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; a resurgence of the U.S. auto industry and American manufacturing; the creation of millions of new, good, middle class manufacturing jobs; lower consumer costs for owning and operating vehicles; and the elimination of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. U.S. automakers are already moving toward EVs, but the pace of this transition is lagging behind our foreign competitors. A dramatic expansion of tax credits for EV purchases could go a long way toward boosting the U.S. EV industry as part of a broader agenda to promote the evolution of the transportation industry away from carbon-intensive fuels.
More American workers would benefit directly from economic growth if they had an ownership in the companies where they work. To help achieve this goal, Congress should encourage more companies to adopt employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), which provide opportunities for workers to participate in a company’s profits and share in its growth. Firms with ESOPs enjoy higher productivity growth and stronger resilience during downturns, and employees enjoy a direct stake in that growth. ESOP firms also generate higher levels of retirement savings for workers, thereby addressing another crucial priority for American workers.
Americans are fed up seeing corporate profits soaring even as their paychecks inch upward by comparison. Companies need stronger incentives to share their prosperity with workers – something the 2017 GOP tax package should have included.
Though President Donald Trump promised higher wages as one result of his corporate tax cuts, the biggest winners were executives and shareholders, not workers. Nevertheless, a growing number of firms are doing right by their workers, taking the high road as “triple-bottom line” concerns committed to worker welfare, environmental stewardship and responsible corporate governance. Many of these are so-called “benefit corporations,” legally chartered to pursue goals beyond maximizing profits and often “certified” as living up to their multiple missions. Congress should encourage more companies to follow this example. One way is to offer tax breaks only for high-road companies with a proven track record of good corporate citizenship, including better wages and benefits for their workers.
The biggest takeaway from two weeks of climate negotiations in Poland is simple, if breathtaking: climate change is such a massive and existential issue that it can only be effectively dealt with by major nation heads of state, not just a collection of 195 environment ministers.
Yes, the basic rules for accounting, monitoring and verification of emissions were agreed to in Poland. These are important, so that all nations can judge whether other countries are on track to make emissions cuts as they have pledged. Ministers deserve real credit for delivering on this. But getting “the Paris rules” right, while necessary, does not begin the harder work of actually cutting emissions, and so is hardly sufficient progress to address the climate crisis, for two key reasons.
First, the largest emitting nations are not even close to on track to meet their Paris pledges. In fact, rather than falling, global CO2 emissions grew by 1.6 percent in 2017 and are projected to increase by 2.7 percent this year. The world’s largest emitter, China, saw its CO2 emissions grow by about 5 percent in 2018. And after steadily falling in previous years under President Obama, U.S. emissions are set to rise by 2.5 percent this year under President Trump. E.U. CO2 output did fall by about 1 percent this year, but rose in 2017 by an equal amount, and Indian emissions rose by more than 6 percent, as did emissions of many other countries.
Second, even if all the Paris emissions pledges were achieved, they would still push global average temperatures up at least 3.5 Celsius, far above even remotely safe levels. In fact, new science is showing us that temperatures that high will be catastrophic, leading to massive sea level rise, agricultural disruptions, more droughts, floods, fires, infectious disease and other extreme impacts.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a national opinion survey that highlights the surprising resilience of America’s pragmatic political center two years into Donald Trump’s deeply polarizing presidency. The poll reinforces a key takeaway from the 2018 midterm elections: Suburban voters – especially women – are repelled by the president’s racial and cultural demagoguery and are moving away from a Trump-dominated GOP.
“Our poll suggests that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 is more likely to be an aberration than any permanent shift in America’s political course,” said Anne Kim, PPI Director of Social and Domestic Policy and PPI President Will Marshall. “The defection of suburban voters creates a political landscape that favors Democrats in 2020 – if they stick to the ‘big tent’ approach that proved so effective in the midterm.”
The poll conducted by Pete Brodnitz at Expedition Strategies contains findings about what’s top of mind for voters, their ideological outlook and leanings, and their views on health care, trade, growth and inequality, the role of government, monopoly and competition, and other contentious issues.
“The agenda that could help Democrats sustain a governing majority, our poll suggests, is one that is progressive yet pragmatic—one that’s optimistic, aspirational and respects Americans’ beliefs in individual initiative and self-determination; one that broadens Americans’ opportunities for success in the private sector and strengthens the nation’s global economic role; one that demands more from business but doesn’t cross the line into stifling growth; and one that adopts a practical approach to big challenges such as immigration reform and climate change,” write Kim and Marshall.
“For Democrats to maintain and expand this near-majority advantage, they must craft a broadly appealing agenda that brings or keeps independents and less committed partisans—the majority of whom call themselves ‘moderate’—under the tent.”
WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today announced the opening of a new office in Berlin, Germany to further its longstanding commitment to transatlantic engagement and cooperation.
“With an uncertain geopolitical landscape in Europe post-Brexit—and ever changing political dynamics in the United States—it is as critical as ever for Americans and Europeans to reaffirm their support for a healthy and productive transatlantic alliance rooted in our shared democratic ideals,” said Lindsay Mark Lewis, Executive Director at PPI.
“With this in mind, PPI believes it is important for U.S. politicians and policy professionals to experience and learn about the European view on essential economic, cultural, and security issues impacting us both and for leaders in Germany and across Europe to engage in a dialogue with the next generation of U.S. leaders. We are excited to announce today the opening of a new office in Berlin to further this mission and to continue our commitment to a better understanding and appreciation of a shared future of prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic.”
The office in Berlin is the second European office that PPI has invested in, following the 2016 Brussels office opening. Over the past several years, PPI has engaged in public policy dialogues in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Rome, London, Dublin, Geneva, Prague, Liverpool, Stockholm, Riga, and Warsaw.
PPI will be partnering with Berlin-based think-tank Das Progressive Zentrum (DPZ) on several upcoming projects that will be announced soon.
PPI is a non-profit organization with the mission of providing educational programming on current policy issues. The think-tank was a leader in the founding and push for the progressive modernization movement in the 1990s. PPI has continued this work since by maintaining relationships in Europe and producing informative and though-provoking transatlantic missions and reports. To date, PPI has hosted bipartisan representatives from more than 70 U.S. congressional, gubernatorial, and mayoral offices.
Donald Trump huffed, and he puffed, but he couldn’t blow NAFTA down.
Like the Big Bad Wolf in the fairy tale, President Trump presumed that NAFTA — which he’s called the“worst trade deal ever”— would collapse before his bluster like a house of straw. Trump’s bombast may have knocked a few shingles off the agreement’s free trade edifice. And it’s caused serious collateral damage to America’s neighborhood and beyond. But, in the end, NAFTA’s structure — like the Three Pigs’ house of bricks — still stands.
Trump, of course, tells a different fable. At a recent rally, Trump declared “[w]e are replacing the job-killing disaster known as NAFTA, with the brand new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.”
Democrats, like progressive parties across the transatlantic world, are struggling to find an answer to populist nationalism. Could that answer lie in reviving another old political creed, socialism?
Some young Democratic activists, inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, are flirting with “democratic socialism.” But they have nothing on Britain’s Labour Party, which consummated its on-again relationship with socialism in Liverpool last week.
The occasion was the party’s annual conference, which I attended when not wallowing in Liverpool’s trove of Beatles memorabilia. The gathering presented an oddly incongruous picture: a reinvigorated party with lots of young faces hawking old ideas.
The Merseyside Conference also capped Jeremy Corbyn’s improbable odyssey from Labour’s hard-left fringe in the early 1980s to party leader today. Having survived media ridicule for his retro views, several attempted ousters and a recent imbroglio over charges that he’s tolerated anti-Semitism among left-wing Labour members, Corbyn at last seems to have his party firmly in hand.
France erupted into celebration following their victory in the World Cup. The success of the multicultural soccer team offered a moment to reflect on the benefits of international migration. The win was also a fulfillment of Macron’s call formore heroesto unify the country. Amid division sowed by populists and nationalists, Macron communicated this call at the funeral of nationally exalted (and half-Belgian) singer Johnny Hallyday last year. Within France’s soccer team,15out of a total of 22 players came from families which had recentlyarrivedfrom non-EU countries. These countries included the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Morocco, Angola, and Algeria. The multi-faith team also includedmuslim players such as Paul Pogba, Ousmane Dembele, N’Golo Kante, Adil Rami, Djibril Sidibe, Benjamin Mendy and Nabil Fekir. The win was a bright spot in an otherwise turbulent time for the EU, engendered by anti-immigrant agendas.
Immigration continues to roil transatlantic politics. While the U.S. fixated on Trump’s child separation policy, the EU dealt with immigration challenges of its own. In a counter to the EU system, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini proposeda union made up of nationalist, populist, and anti-immigrant parties across Europe. He described the network as“a League of the Leagues of Europe, bringing together all the free and sovereign movements that want to defend their people and their borders.”These leaders would include France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, Nigel Farage, who lobbied for the referendum that resulted in Britain leaving the union, and others. Not to be accused of only protecting the borders, Salvini set his sights inward. Locals reported authorities hadcleared outan official Roma camp, and cited concern for the future of the Roma population in Italy.
The EU summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on reducing the immigration challenges which form a prominent platform for populist parties. The summit, held June 28th-29th, focused on redistributing and lessening the flows of migrants arriving by boat to the EU’s southernmost countries. Populist and nationalist parties which run on anti-immigrant platforms include Italy’s 5Star / the League Coalition, Germany’s Christian Social Union, and France’s National Rally (previously the National Front).
Share the responsibility of refugees arriving in the bloc on a newly voluntary basis,
Increase financing to Turkey, Morocco and other North African countries to prevent migration to Europe,
Support the development of regional disembarkation platforms for people saved at sea, aimed at “rapidly and safely”distinguishing between economic migrants and asylum seekers.
EU leaders also discussed the creation of an external migration management facility to be included under the next EU long-term budget. The plan would need sign-off from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as the International Organization for Migration. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel called specifically for alignment with all international legal standards regarding the facility. In 2016, Merkel led the creation of a similar program, in which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğanagreed to take back migrants who had reached Europe in exchange for billions in euros to cover basics for Syrian refugee in Turkey. Germany also took in some Syrian refugees. In its first year of operation, Doctors Without Borders highlighted the “devastating human consequences of this strategy on the lives and health”of those sent to Turkey. Other examples of offshore immigrant processing facilities, such as the Australian detention centers on the islands of Nauru and Manus, have been sites of human rights concerns,hunger strikes, and other challenges.
On the last day of the EU Summit, the impact of these immigration challenges on human life was made clear. The Libyan Coast Guardreporteda boat filled with migrants bound for Europe had sunk. One hundred people were missing, and the bodies of three infants were recovered.
The entire transatlantic world is embroiled in heated debates over the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Trump’s decision to revoke his own family separation policy, after it sparked outrage across the country and drew scrutiny by members of both parties in Congress, put a spotlight on just how inhumane the treatment of migrants, including asylum-seekers, can be. In Europe, Italy and Malta refused to let a Doctors Without Borders boat carrying nearly 700 migrants to dock, prompting Spain to offer its ports. To the north, German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to seek stricter measures on migrants in Germany. Below, what to follow on immigration in the coming weeks.
United States: What impact will Congress have on the separation of families at the southern border?
Trump signed an executive order on June 20th to halt the separation of families at the southern border. The policy had resulted in children and babies taken from their parents and held in cage-like structures. Many prominent Republicans, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, and CNN National Security Analyst and previous NSA director Michael Hayden spoke out against the policy. Sen. Collins stated that the policy was “traumatizing to the children who are innocent victims, and it is contrary to our values in this country.” However, arecent Quinnipiac pollsuggests the family separation policy is supported by 55 percent of her fellow Republicans.
As Trump’s executive order could be short-term, Congress is still moving forward on a number of bills. Senate Democrats introduced the Keep Families Together Act on June 7th. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced a bill in the House to limit separation at or near ports of entry on June 19th. The bills had 48 and 194 co-sponsors, respectively, as of June 21st. Republicans have put forth both a hardline approach by Virginia rep. Bob Goodlatte, and a so-called “compromise” bill that would end the separation policy and provide deportation protections and a path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, while allocating $25 billion in funding for Trump’s border wall, limiting authorized and unauthorized immigration, and continuing to detain asylum-seekers. Goodlatte’s bill failed on the House floor June 21st, and voting on the “compromise” bill was delayed.
Europe: How will the EU hold up amid refusals to let refugee boats dock?
Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat played a game of “not it” when a boat carrying 692 rescued migrants attempted to dock in their countries. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez allowed the migrants to dock at his ports on June 17th, ending the impasse. As the boat was first spotted by the Italian coast-guard, Italy was obligated to take in the migrants until their asylum requests would have been decided, per EU policy. The ability of EU supporters to hold the union together amid these divisions could impact its future stability, and the state of intra-European relations. European leaders plan to meet Sunday to discuss this and other migration challenges.
Amid threats to the coalition between German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and right-of-center Christian Social Union, Merkel has agreed to seek stricter immigration measures ahead of an end-of-the-month EU summit. In response to the immigration challenges arising in Germany, Trumptweeted: “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!” His statement is incorrect (crime in Germany at a25 year low), ill-considered, and needlessly alienates a key European ally.
Given the continuing advance of populist, anti-immigrant sentiment across the Western democracies, we can expect fresh controversies to arise at national borders. Every country has a right to determine who it admits, and on what terms, and to enforce its immigration laws. But that right doesn’t relieve any country of the moral duty to treat immigrants – even unwanted ones – humanely and with some concern for their reasons for coming. That’s a lesson President Trump keeps learning, the hard way.
The President’s blunt goal of reducing America’s trade deficit with China won’t address the threat of China’s high-tech mercantilism
WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report by Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade & Global Opportunity, proposing a smart, targeted long-term U.S. strategy to combat China’s state-directed technology mercantilism, instead of the unfocused protectionist approach being pursued by the Trump Administration.
“The Trump Administration is right to highlight the threat that China’s state-directed technology mercantilism poses to America’s economic future,” says Gerwin. “But the Administration’s strategy—based on duties that damage the American economy and ‘America First’ policies that alienate our allies—is flawed, and won’t change China’s bad behavior. Neither will doubling down on that ill-considered strategy through this week’s announcement of additional trade taxes on $200 billion in Chinese-origin goods.”
“Instead of tariffs and trade wars, the United States needs to pursue a tough, targeted, long-term strategy that enlists allies, enforces rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. We detail such a strategy in our new report.”
According to Gerwin, the linchpin of China’s future-oriented mercantilism is an extensive array of plans, policies, rules, and practices to enable the transfer and assimilation of foreign technology and intellectual property for China’s benefit. To achieve these goals, China is employing many unfair or illegal measures, including using foreign ownership restrictions and licensing approvals to compel American companies to transfer their technology, and directing and funding a highly coordinated effort by Chinese state-owned and private firms to acquire foreign tech firms. China’s conduct poses a threat to the United States, Gerwin notes, where IP-intensive industries alone support more than 45 million jobs and represent 39 percent of U.S. GDP.
But threatening duties on Chinese products is unlikely to upend China’s innovation mercantilism, Gerwin argues. Duties are likely to increase American consumer prices and reduce vital technology investments, while a tit-for-tat tariff war with China could cost an estimated 455,000 American jobs, most in less-skilled sectors. The Administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to trade is also alienating allies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere who should be natural allies in opposing China’s technology mercantilism. Finally, there’s significant concern that President Trump may undercut the long-term effort required to address Chinese mercantilism by, instead, focusing on short-term “wins.”
America should keep all options on the table in opposing China’s abusive innovation practices, including targeted and intensifying trade sanctions, writes Gerwin. But these tactics must be part of a smarter, focused, long-term U.S. strategy that includes:
Working more closely with—and not needlessly alienating—trade partners who also face threats from China’s unfair technology practices;
Using the WTO much more aggressively to launch a bold series of WTO challenges to China’s multiple rules violations;
Leading a global effort to establish new rules and norms to address China’s unfair innovation practices that aren’t covered by existing global trade rules, including new rules to limit digital protection-ism and unfair competition by SOEs; and
Designating a single, high-level official to lead focused negotiations to seek specific and verifiable commitments from China on ending China’s use of abusive practices that harm American competitors in innovative industry sectors
Gerwin calls on Congress to play a more active role in confronting China’s high-tech mercantilism by:
Establishing a clear set of negotiating objectives for China that underscore the primacy of eliminating China’s abusive innovation policies;
Providing additional resources to support ramped-up investigation, consultation, and enforcement related to China’s unfair trade and technology practices;
Amending current law to broaden Executive Branch authority to use national security reviews, export controls, and other tools to address security and industrial base threats posed by China’s acquisitions and technology demands; and
Establishing an escalating series of sanctions that would kick in if China fails to make verifiable progress in eliminating abusive innovation practices, potentially including reciprocal restrictions on Chinese technology licensing, the withdrawal of U.S. scientific and technical cooperation, and/or targeted sanctions on Chinese products based on stolen or unfairly obtained American know-how.
A Smarter Strategy for Securing America’s Innovation Edge
In early April, reportedly after “zero substantive internal debate,” President Trump ordered the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider imposing additional tariffs on $100 billion in Chinese products.Trump’s order claimed that new tariffs were needed to retaliate against China’s threatened retaliation for tariffs that Trump had announced earlier.
Trump’s impulsive escalationwas denounced by farmers, retailers, tech organizations, and others, and by bipartisan political leaders. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) put things bluntly: “This is nuts. China is guilty of many things, but the President has no actual plan to win right now.”
Digital platforms, also known as “online intermediation services,” are increasingly important for European businesses, bringing wide-ranging benefits to both individual consumers and to the participating companies. More and more new platforms are arising – in areas such as manufacturing and healthcare. Not surprisingly, as digital platforms have become more numerous and significant, they have come under the scrutiny of regulators. In particular, the European Commission has been examining the perception that European business users are being treated unfairly by digital platforms. The result was a recently proposed new regulation “promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services.”
In this paper, we first analyze the economic and commercial constraints facing digital platforms. In particular, we focus on two economic imperatives: First, platforms have a strong incentive to maintain user trust. Second, platforms have a strong incentive to keep transaction-related costs under control.
At the G7 Summit last week, Donald Trump’s fixation on tariffs, as well as his withdrawal of support for a Group of Seven communique, made waves. The President’s protectionist agenda could do serious and lasting damage to the U.S. economy, American workers, and the international relationships we’ve spent decades building. In response, pragmatic progressives should champion a genuine alternative economic platform focused on growth, expanded opportunity, and strengthening U.S. strategic alliances.
A 2016 report by the Progressive Policy Institute offers an approach to boosting the U.S. economy and middle class prosperity without threatening relations with key allies. The report,Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism, edited by PPI President Will Marshall, puts forth an optimistic plan to strengthen America’s economic and fiscal security–while improving vital trade and security ties with America’s G7 partners. The report speaks specifically against the kinds of protectionist policies Trump has instigated, instead encouraging the democratization of trade, the free flow of data across global borders, and the support for innovative trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The report begins with a review of the specific economic challenges faced by the United States, including slow growth since 2000, stagnating wages and living standards, and a shrinkage of the middle class. These problems cannot be fixed by trade wars and isolationism, but rather, as the report explains, require a series of positive changes in American economic and regulatory policies.
The report proposes spreading innovation across the economy through the adoption of a new ‘Innovation Platform’ aimed at stimulating public and private investment in new ideas and enterprises. It also urges improving the regulatory climate impeding greater innovation in non-digitized industries and investment in small and new businesses. The report also proposes creating business incentives to offer more flexible work, including paid leave and overtime, for gig-economy workers. The plan also includes ways to increase renewable energy creation, modernize public works, improve K-12 education, and narrow the wealth inequality gap with universal pensions.
PPI’s blueprint underlines the issues that can arise from embracing populist policies, such as mistrust in democratic institutions and threats to economic and national security. The report is a reminder that smarter, optimistic policy alternatives to populism and nationalism can benefit all Americans, as well as our allies in the G7.
President Trump petulantly attacked U.S. allies at the G-7 summit in Quebec, then dashed off to Singapore to heap praise on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. You couldn’t ask for a more vivid illustration of the illiberal spirit that shapes his “America First” doctrine.
But Trump is hardly alone in embracing hyper-nationalism. According to PPI President Will Marshall, illiberal nationalism is the common thread running through the three most potent threats to the democratic world: the rise of national populism, especially in Europe; Russia’s reversion to despotism at home and adventurism abroad; and, the emergence of China’s autocratic capitalism as a plausible alternative to market democracy.
Marshall elaborated on the dangers of neo-nationalism in comments prepared for the Biennial Colloquy on the State of Democracy, organized in Rome this spring by the Centro Studi Americani. That commentary follows:
Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to the Trump Administration’s announcement of new tariffs on Chinese-origin imports and China’s announced retaliation:
“China’s technology mercantilism is a serious threat to America’s economic future that requires a tough and effective American response, but the Trump Administration’s announcement today of $50 billion in duties on Chinese-origin products is not even close to that response.
“Making American businesses and working families pay billions in new trade taxes won’t change China’s bad behavior. Instead, China will respond—as it has already announced—with billions in targeted retaliatory tariffs that will make it much harder for American manufacturers and farmers to export there. It cannot be overstated—these tit-for-tat tariffs will destroy jobs and devastate communities throughout the United States.
“Responding to China’s unfair trade practices and technology theft with “America First” protectionism is a terrible mistake. The Administration’s deeply flawed and poorly focused strategy—based on duties that damage America’s economy and “go-it-alone” trade policies that alienate vital allies—will have large-scale and long-term repercussions.
“Instead of instigating trade wars, the United States should confront China’s unfair trade practices with a targeted, long-term response that enlists our international allies, enforces current trade rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations on key issues, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. PPI will outline such a strategy in a new report to be released next week.
“Open global markets are manifestly in America’s interest. Given a level playing field, America’s innovative businesses can compete and win anywhere. In trade wars, nearly everyone loses.”
In Italy, the first populist government in Western Europe was sworn in on June 1st. The win was secured by a coalition between the right-wing League and the eurosceptic 5Star Movement. Below, four things to follow in the coming months:
How long can the coalition hold?
Amid divisions (the League is a right-wing party with a northern background, 5Star is an ideological mixed bag with southern roots) the two parties succeeded in holding together through the election. Their divides, such as differences of opinion on combating economic decline (the League has proposed precipitous tax cuts, while Five Star has supported funds for the unemployed) did not break the coalition. Yet support for the League has grown from 17 to 25 percent since March, while support for 5Star has plateaued at 32 percent. Of additional concern is Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Conte is a former academic, whose only government experience has been a stint on the government administrative justice council. What this means for the future of the coalition is yet to be seen. Italy has had over 60 governments since becoming a republic in 1946.
The Impact of the Coalition on Stocks, the Euro, and Italian Public Debt
The coalition has put forth a 58-pageagreementoutlining its agenda. The plan could cost as much as€125 billion, a far greater sum than the €500 million the coalition has budgeted for it, according to a report by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. The plan includes a guaranteed income of €780 a month and a near-flat tax policy. Of additional concern is the coalition’s unpredictable impact on stocks, shaky support of the euro, and willingness to reduce public debt. The advancement, stagnation or decline of the Italian economy under the new government may impact future support for the coalition.
Impact on New Arrivals
The future for migrants, immigrants, and asylum seekers within Italy is uncertain. Interior Minister Salvini has taken aharsh stance, saying “the good times for illegals are over – get ready to pack your bags.” Salvini has pledged to deport up to 500,000 immigrants without papers. Tensions between Italy’s native population and immigrants, particularly migrants, has risen steadily. The fatal shooting of Malian-born legal residentSoumaila Sacko, a trade unionist who protested working conditions for migrants, has done nothing to ease tensions.
Impact on International Relations
Conte has explored lifting the sanctions placed on Russia following the crisis in Ukraine. NATO opposes the idea. In aspeechto parliament on June 5th, Conte has pledged to both “reaffirm our convinced membership of NATO” and “support opening up to Russia” including reviewing the sanctions that “risk humiliating Russian civil society.” In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergsaid “I think the economic sanctions are important because they send a clear message that what Russia has done in Ukraine has to have consequences.”
These economic, immigration, and foreign affairs concerns will impact both the longevity of the coalition, and the future of Italy, the EU, and international relations as a whole.
