Paying for Progress: A Blueprint to Cut Costs, Boost Growth, and Expand American Opportunity

The next administration must confront the consequences that the American people are finally facing from more than two decades of fiscal mismanagement in Washington. Annual deficits in excess of $2 trillion during a time when the unemployment rate hovers near a historically low 4% have put upward pressure on prices and strained family budgets. Annual interest payments on the national debt, now the highest they’ve ever been in history, are crowding out public investments into our collective future, which have fallen near historic lows. Working families face a future with lower incomes and diminished opportunities if we continue on our current path.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) believes that the best way to promote opportunity for all Americans and tackle the nation’s many problems is to reorient our public budgets away from subsidizing short-term consumption and towards investments that lay the foundation for long-term economic abundance. Rather than eviscerating government in the name of fiscal probity, as many on the right seek to do, our “Paying for Progress” Blueprint offers a visionary framework for a fairer and more prosperous society.

Our blueprint would raise enough revenue to fund our government through a tax code that is simpler, more progressive, and more pro-growth than current policy. We offer innovative ideas to modernize our nation’s health-care and retirement programs so they better reflect the needs of our aging population. We would invest in the engines of American innovation and expand access to affordable housing, education, and child care to cut the cost of living for working families. And we propose changes to rationalize federal programs and institutions so that our government spends smarter rather than merely spending more.

Many of these transformative policies are politically popular — the kind of bold, aspirational ideas a presidential candidate could build a campaign around — while others are more controversial because they would require some sacrifice from politically influential constituencies. But the reality is that both kinds of policies must be on the table, because public programs can only work if the vast majority of Americans that benefit from them are willing to contribute to them. Unlike many on the left, we recognize that progressive policies must be fiscally sound and grounded in economic pragmatism to make government work for working Americans now and in the future.

If fully enacted during the first year of the next president’s administration, the recommendations in this report would put the federal budget on a path to balance within 20 years. But we do not see actually balancing the budget as a necessary end. Rather, PPI seeks to put the budget on a healthy trajectory so that future policymakers have the fiscal freedom to address emergencies and other unforeseen needs. Moreover, because PPI’s blueprint meets such an ambitious fiscal target, we ensure that adopting even half of our recommended savings would be enough to stabilize the debt as a percent of GDP. Thus, our proposals to cut costs, boost growth, and expand American opportunity will remain a strong menu of options for policymakers to draw upon for years to come, even if they are unlikely to be enacted in their entirety any time soon.

The roughly six dozen federal policy recommendations in this report are organized into 12 overarching priorities:

I. Replace Taxes on Work with Taxes on Consumption and Unearned Income
II. Make the Individual Income Tax Code Simpler and More Progressive
III. Reform the Business Tax Code to Promote Growth and International Competitiveness
IV. Secure America’s Global Leadership
V. Strengthen Social Security’s Intergenerational Compact
VI. Modernize Medicare
VII. Cut Health-Care Costs and Improve Outcomes
VIII. Support Working Families and Economic Opportunity
IX. Make Housing Affordable for All
X. Rationalize Safety-Net Programs
XI. Improve Public Administration
XII. Manage Public Debt Responsibly

Read the full Blueprint. 

Read the Summary of Recommendations.

Read the PPI press release.

See how PPI’s Blueprint compares to six alternatives. 

Media Mentions:

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: A Hello to Arms

By Tamar Jacoby

I’m not sure what made me do it. Living in a war zone, you get used to the emotional ups and downs. But there’s growing uncertainty here in Ukraine, and finally, something prompted me to act.

I woke up one morning a few weeks ago with a new sense of dread and urgency. What if things really were going sideways? What if the Russians managed to break through in Chasiv Yar, a pivotal battle on the eastern front that could unleash a cascade of additional Russian wins further to the west? And what, if anything, could I do to make a difference? What was the point of writing another op-ed piece?

So I started calling around. Did friends have any ideas? A few hours later, I decided to buy a drone for a unit fighting in Chasiv Yar.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Jacoby in NBC News: The shadow of Trump looms over the NATO summit

As for Ukraine’s future security arrangements, U.S. and European officials say they hope to hammer out a statement at the summit promising an “irreversible” path to NATO membership for Kyiv.

But that language may not be enough to secure Ukraine’s place in the NATO alliance if Trump is elected, said Tamar Jacoby, the Kyiv-based director of the New Ukraine Project at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank.

“If you want to be in the West, you have to be tied to the West, and indeed, you have to be ultimately protected by the West. And so, in a way, NATO membership is the most important thing that Ukrainians are fighting for,” Jacoby said.

Jacoby for Foreign Policy: How Ukraine’s Drone Industry Took Flight

By Tamar Jacoby

Vladyslav Ripko’s day job is working for the Ukrainian government as a financial analyst. But in the evenings and on weekends, he and his friends make drones for the army. He calls their group an “enthusiast collective.” All 12 members volunteer their time. They raise money for drone components on a crowdfunding platform. One volunteer with a 3D printer makes small parts they cannot buy. The team assembles the components in a Kyiv workshop and sends the finished product to the front using a commercial package service.

Unlike many larger Ukrainian drone producers, Ripko’s amateur collective receives no direct help from the government. Still, he said, he benefits from the government’s campaign to support private businesses building unmanned autonomous vehicles, or UAVs, for the armed forces.

Some half-dozen government agencies, including the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Transformation, have provided tax breaks, start-up grants, and technical support, rolling back the red tape and regulation that hem in much of the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The result is that more than 200 registered companies—some industry insiders count more than 500 producers if you include smaller firms and volunteers in garages—now supply troops with hundreds of thousands of drones a month.

Keep reading in Foreign Policy.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: The Trumpists’ Dangerous ‘Peace’ Plan for Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE imagines that a re-elected President Donald Trump would be much of a friend to Kyiv. But the so-called “peace” proposal leaked last week by two former national security staffers from the Trump administration, now at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, is even more toxic than many expected.

Predictably enough, the plan stipulates an immediate ceasefire, obligatory negotiations with Russia and a temporary—in truth, likely to be permanent—abandonment of Ukrainian claims to the 20 percent of Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Moscow. The poison pill was less predictable: Under the plan, the United States would strong-arm Kyiv to defer membership in NATO “for an extended period”—again, in the real world, most likely forever.

Trump hasn’t yet endorsed the plan, but his comments on a podcast last month suggest he is open to a NATO ban. “If Ukraine goes into NATO, it’s a real problem for Russia,” the former president told a trio of sympathetic Silicon Valley investors. Echoing a claim that Moscow and its proxies have been peddling for years, Trump argued that it was President Joe Biden’s support for Ukrainian membership in the alliance that provoked Vladimir Putin to invade in February 2022.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Pankovits for RealClearWorld: What U.S. Democrats Can Learn From UK Labour

By Tressa Pankovits

British voters go to the polls in less than a month. All signs point to a crushing defeat for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party after 14 chaotic years in power. The Labour Party, ably led by Keir Starmer, is leading the Tories in polls by more than 20 points and appears poised for a strong victory.

Like here at home, U.K. voters say the economy is their most important issue. Unlike here, however, K-12 education — known as “schools policy” in Britain — is expected to be a key flashpoint. Labour is leaning into the issue, knowing that it’s important to working-class families fed up with crumbling schools and a government that seems to care little about their children’s academic or mental well-being.

This is not the first time that Labour has had to rescue an education system in crisis. The last Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, rode into office in 1997 partly on the back of an oft-repeated three-word phrase: “Education, education, education.” Like his American counterpart, President Bill Clinton, Blair wasted little time pushing through education reforms.

Keep reading in RealClearWorld.

Jacoby for NY Post: As Europe Shifts Right, Biden Must Stand Up for Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

Nearly 185 million voters in 27 European countries voted last weekend to elect representatives not to their own, national governments but to the European Parliament – the legislative arm of the European Union (EU).

The outcome was dramatic: a decided turn to the right, especially in the bloc’s two biggest member states, France and Germany.

The shift will have consequences for a range of European issues, most significantly the green transition, now likely to be much slower.

But it also has important repercussions for the US, underscoring the need for American global leadership on Ukraine and Russia.

Keep reading in the New York Post.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Beacons of Hope for the Ukrainian Economy

By Tamar Jacoby

As donors and investors gather this week in Berlin for the Ukraine Recovery Conference, all eyes are on helping the besieged nation. In Mykolaiv, near the Black Sea, the Danish government assists by jump-starting local businesses, fighting corruption—and helping Ukraine shake off its Soviet economic legacy.

The damage is evident everywhere in Mykolaiv, once a bustling port and shipbuilding hub near the Black Sea, 85 miles east of Odesa. Russian and Ukrainian forces fought hand to hand in and around the city in March 2022, followed by eight months of relentless shelling by the frustrated invading army. In November, Ukrainian troops pushed the Russians out of range, and the invaders never made it to Odesa.

More than two years later, many of the windows in the working-class city are still covered with plywood. Parking lots are pocked with shell craters. There’s a gaping eight-story hole at the center of the empty regional administration building—a reminder of the missiles meant to assassinate popular Governor Vitalii Kim that killed 37 civil servants in late March 2022.

The city’s economic engine—the port—is idle. Russians still control the mouth of the channel that connects Mykolaiv to the Black Sea, and no cargo has come or gone since February 2022. The nearly 300-year-old town teems with displaced persons from southern Ukraine, but a quarter of the city’s prewar population of 480,000 has yet to return.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Marshall for The Hill: New tactics and an assist from NATO can help Ukraine defeat Russia

By Will Marshall

U.S. allies will converge in Washington next month for this year’s NATO summit, which also marks the 75th anniversary of the most successful collective security pact in modern times.

Amid the prosaic business of managing a 32-nation alliance, one urgent question will hover over the gathering: Are the transatlantic partners doing enough to prevent Russia from snuffing out Ukraine’s sovereignty?

If they fail, it won’t just be a tragedy for Ukraine. Its defeat or dismemberment would reward Vladimir Putin’s aggression and whet his appetite for regaining control over other former Soviet possessions, such as Armenia, Moldova and the Baltic states.

Keep reading in The Hill.

GOP’s Budget-Busting Defense and Tax Proposals Are Incompatible

Last week, Senator Roger Wicker, the GOP ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for increasing U.S. defense spending from roughly 3% to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next five to seven years to prepare for increased geopolitical tensions with Russia, China, and Iran. That would require at least $5 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade, for which Senator Wicker offers no offsets.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans also want to spend an additional $4 trillion over the next decade to extend the Trump 2017 tax cuts, most of which are currently set to expire in 2026. Even if there were national security merits to Senator Wicker’s proposal, Republicans have offered the country no explanation for how they intend to finance $9 trillion in spending, which would reverse the $1.5 trillion of savings they secured in last year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act several times over. By comparison, the most recent Biden budget proposed $4.1 trillion in new spending over the next decade, and much of that was offset by proposed tax increases.

Wicker’s plans for a dramatic ramp-up of defense spending were swiftly endorsed by Mitch McConnell and several other prominent Republicans. However, the proposal does not spell out a clear strategic rationale for such a high defense target. In an op-ed defending the proposal, Wicker cites the unfunded priorities lists annually requested by the Pentagon as one justification for this increase. However, the spending increase that would be required to fully fund all these priorities is less than one-tenth of what Wicker is calling for. Moreover, there is clearly some room for the Pentagon to pay for these priorities by spending smarter rather than spending more. The Inspector General’s Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Defense Business Board have all suggested that smarter procurement and personnel decisions could save money with few negative consequences for military readiness.

But if our country faces threats dire enough to justify this new spending, you’d expect a party that has repeatedly threatened to crash the economy in the name of “fiscal discipline” to come up with ways to pay for it. Yet Republicans have instead chosen to do the opposite, calling for even more tax cuts for affluent Americans by making their 2017 tax bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), permanent. Although TCJA made some positive changes to simplify the individual tax code that are worth extending, it also lavished almost two-thirds of the overall benefits on the top fifth of income earners. And contrary to GOP claims that the law would pay for itself, even sympathetic estimates say only about 14% of the total cost is estimated to be recouped through faster economic growth.

America cannot afford the GOP’s reckless spending proposals. The federal government spent $2 trillion more than it raised in revenue last year — a deficit that cannot be justified at a time of strong economic growth and record-low unemployment rates. Interest costs as a percent of GDP are now higher than at any other point in American history, and they are projected to more than double over the next 30 years even if current law remains unchanged. If this growth continues unchecked, interest costs will begin to crowd out other important priorities, including national defense. This scenario is hardly hypothetical, as interest payments on the debt eclipsed defense spending for the first time last year. If the GOP truly wanted to ensure military readiness, they would ensure that defense spending is sustainable rather than pitch unrealistic spending surges.

Ultimately, these GOP proposals highlight how unserious their party is on improving the nation’s fiscal outlook. Despite their routine demonization of fiscal proposals from the other side of the aisle, they fail to recognize the complete incompatibility and hypocrisy of their own $9 trillion priorities. Republicans want to spend now and pay later — by sticking young Americans with the bill. Policymakers in Congress and the Administration should be having a serious dialogue about what is necessary to correct the nation’s fiscal trajectory, not making it worse.

Jacoby for Liberal Europe Podcast: The Future of Ukraine

In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social) welcomes Tamar Jacoby, from the Progressive Policy Institute, former journalist and author, now living in Ukraine where she reports on the war and the work done by the government and civil society to modernize and make Ukraine a more liberal democratic country.

European Liberal Forum · Ep189 The future of Ukraine with Tamar Jacoby

Jacoby for the Los Angeles Times: Every day is Memorial Day in Ukraine

By Tamar Jacoby

It looks like a video shot with a phone from an apartment window. The camera pans a line of cars stopped on the roadway below, and it takes a minute to understand what we’re looking at.

Then a cortege comes into view: about 50 people walking slowly behind a coffin draped with the Ukrainian flag. When the shot widens, we see that traffic traveling in the other direction on the eight-lane road has come to a halt, and people have gotten out of their cars. A few are standing solemnly as the funeral passes; most are kneeling on the asphalt, heads bowed in respect.

By the time I see the social media post, “The funeral of a fallen defender in Kyiv today,” nearly a thousand viewers have reacted with comments or emojis. Among the most common: Heroyam slava — glory to the heroes.

Memorial Day in the U.S. was set aside to honor those who fell in the Civil War. Now Americans play “Taps” and put flowers on graves of those who died in many wars, all in the past. Here in Ukraine, people can only dream of the day when the flag-draped funerals have ended and battles are distant memories commemorated by a nation at peace.

Keep reading in the Los Angeles Times.

Johnson for American Purpose: Caring Isn’t Enough

By Jeremiah Johnson

Over the past few weeks, campus protests focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have received an inordinate amount of media attention. Images of the protests, news of university actions (or lack of action) against the protests, and debates about their legitimacy have been front-page news. And yet for all the breathless coverage, one thing seems to be missing: an explanation why any of this matters at all.

You may say that these events matter to the colleges impacted or to America’s domestic politics. But the protests are nominally about what’s happening in Gaza. And there’s very little reporting on how any of the protestors plan to make a difference there.

The truth is that they’re not going to make any difference to those enduring the conflict whatsoever. Furthermore, it’s not even clear whether the protestors realize that is supposed to be the goal. Helping Palestinians in Gaza no longer seems to be the point. It’s certainly worthwhile for college students to care about injustice in the world. But caring isn’t enough.

Read more in American Purpose.

Jacoby for New York Post: The new $61B aid package for Ukraine is merely a good start

By Tamar Jacoby

KYIV — I was elated on Saturday night as I watched the House of Representatives wrap up its vote on a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine.

Even six months after President Biden proposed the increased aid, bringing the bill up for a vote took historic courage and leadership from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could still lose his job for defying the will of the majority of House Republicans who oppose aid.

But here in Ukraine, the reaction has been surprisingly muted.

The weaponry likely to flow in coming weeks will be essential on the battlefield and in cities across the country, where Russian air attacks have intensified sharply in recent weeks.

It should start to stabilize the front in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Moscow is currently poised to break through, and help Ukrainians shore up their defenses in anticipation of the Russian thrust that many expect in coming months as spring sunshine hardens the muddy ground between the two armies.

What the package is unlikely to do is enable Kyiv to go on the offensive, turning the tide of the war and positioning Ukraine to win.

Keep reading in New York Post.

Marshall for The Hill: Why Putin needs Trump to win

By Will Marshall

In Ukraine, the fickle fortunes of war have turned in Russia’s favor. The invaders have seized the military initiative, while a Trumpified Republican Party has thrown in doubt both America’s commitment to a free Ukraine and our will to confront a new Russian imperialism.

For the moment, however, GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has managed to unsnag more than $60 billion in long-stalled U.S. military aid that Ukraine desperately needs to defend itself against a Russian summer offensive.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently confirmed Moscow’s plan to seize Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city. Exploiting their advantages in manpower and missiles, willingness to take casualties and Ukraine’s dire shortage of artillery shells, Russian forces lately have made significant if costly advances near Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Donetsk City.

Although I’m loathe to praise any 2020 election denier, Speaker Johnson acted patriotically, if belatedly, in bringing the aid package to the House floor and passing it with Democratic help.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: As Ukraine Struggles, Fears of Russian Aggression Soar in Poland

By Tamar Jacoby

The West has been speculating about the size of Vladimir Putin’s appetite since Russian troops began massing on the Ukrainian border in early 2022, with many predicting even then that the war would spill over into Central Europe. But the situation on the ground has changed in recent months. “It’s one thing to speculate and make plans in theory,” a Polish government official told our group. “It’s very different when you’re actually facing a threat.” Now, more than two years into the war, with Russia poised to break through in Ukraine and international support for Kyiv flagging, many in Poland are actively preparing for war.

Poland’s predicament starts with its all-too-familiar geography. An overwhelmingly Catholic nation of 41 million people, it sits at a bloody crossroads—what a member of parliament called “our cursed position on the map of Europe between Russia and Germany.” Much of Poland, he reminded us, including Warsaw, was part of Russia from 1795 until 1918, and the Soviet Union dominated it for most of the second half of the 20th century. Poles and Ukrainians have often found themselves on the same side of history. But the relationship fragmented during and after World War II, when ethnic tensions erupted in the massacre of some 100,000 Poles and communist authorities moved more than a million Poles and Ukrainians from one side of the border to the other.

After Putin invaded Ukraine, Poland emerged as one of Kyiv’s best friends in Europe. In the first months of the war, it welcomed over 3.5 million refugees, and hundreds of thousands of Polish families took Ukrainians into their homes. Polish President Andrzej Duda was among the first foreign leaders to visit wartime Kyiv. Warsaw began sending materiel to Ukraine—first tanks, then helicopters and fighter jets taken directly from its own active-duty units.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.