Ritz for Forbes: “Democrats Finally Debated The Deficit. What Did They Say?”

Two days ago, I noted there had been little mention in the Democratic debates of the trillion-dollar deficits being run up by the Trump administration. That discussion finally started last night after moderator Abby Phillip asked Sen. Bernie Sanders how he would finance his proposals to double existing federal spending. Several candidates weighed in, offering insight into how their management of the federal budget would differ from one another, as well as with President Trump.

Sanders rejected the premise of the question and insisted that his Medicare-for-All plan would actually reduce total health-care spending in the United States. The reality, however, is that – despite embracing almost every tax hike imaginable – Sanders hasn’t come up with a credible plan to finance even half of the more than $50 trillion in additional spending he’s proposed over the next 10 years. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has made enacting a federal wealth tax one of the central pillars of her campaign, said that some of the revenue from this tax could be used to pay down the growing national debt.

The problem here is that Warren – like Sanders – has already pre-committed every dollar of her wealth tax (and other revenue proposals) to new spending. Major federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, are facing growing shortfalls due to our ageing population and the Trump administration’s reckless tax-cut and spending policies. As a result, the next president will likely inherit a 10-year deficit of almost $17 trillion. How could Warren or Sanders hope to pay for the promises our government is already making after they’ve tapped every revenue source they conceivably can to pay for new spending?

Read the full piece here.

Ritz for Forbes: “2019 Was Officially Trump’s First Trillion-Dollar Deficit. Will Democrats Debate It?”

It’s official: the Trump administration spent $1 trillion more in 2019 than it raised in revenue. That deficit is 50% larger than the deficit in 2017, which was President Trump’s first year in office, and represents the first calendar-year deficit to top $1 trillion since 2012. Annual deficits will only grow worse in the coming decade, in large part thanks to the $2 trillion tax cut Trump signed into law in 2017 and a similarly-sized tax and spending deal he signed at the end of last year (over a quarter of which was added to the national debt).

With trillion-dollar annual deficits stretching into the future indefinitely, will Democrats address this generational challenge in their Presidential debate? There sure is an appetite for it: when I had the privilege of speaking with students at the New England College Convention in New Hampshire last week, they expressed deep concern about the rising national debt they’re poised to inherit and how the Democratic candidates would pay for their proposals.

Unfortunately, these issues haven’t been raised in any of the more than 500 questions asked throughout the last six presidential debates. The seventh debate on Tuesday night presents one last opportunity to change this dynamic before the Iowa Caucus.

Read the full piece here.

Stangler for Medium: “The first Democratic debate of 2020 is next week: Guess what won’t be talked about?”

The Democratic presidential field continues to be in flux, with Julian Castro dropping out and Michael Bloomberg ramping up his campaign. Participation in the January 14th debate is, as of yesterday, limited to just five candidates. Those five — Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sanders — have hit the polling and donation thresholds to qualify.

The narrowing is unsurprising, but unfortunate in many respects. The biggest is that it means the debate likely won’t include much mention of one of the most important economic issues facing the country. What’s that?

Declining business creation and overall economic dynamism.

Read the full piece here.

Ritz for Forbes: “The Trillion-Dollar Question Missing From The Presidential Debate”

Congress voted this week for a $1.9 trillion tax and spending deal, over a quarter of which was added to our $23 trillion national debt. Thanks to this and other fiscally irresponsible legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump, the federal government will run an annual budget deficit of over $1 trillion this year and every year that comes after it. Yet of over 500 questions asked throughout six presidential debates, not a single one has raised the issue.

 

Read the full piece on Forbes.

Ritz for Forbes: “Naughty Or Nice? Breaking Down Congress’s $1.9 Trillion Budget Deal”

The House of Representatives earlier this afternoon passed two bills to provide $1.4 trillion in funding for defense and non-defense spending programs that must be appropriated on an annual basis. As is often the case with must-pass legislation at the end of the year, these bills have become “Christmas trees” decorated with various policy riders and pet projects for members of both parties in Congress. What are the major provisions attached to this legislation that help add $500 billion to its price tag, and should they put Congress on the naughty or the nice list?

Read the full piece on Forbes.

Ritz for Forbes: “Three Tax Cuts a Santa Claus Congress Could Deliver in 2019”

Congress must pass a comprehensive funding bill by the end of next week to avoid a repeat of last year’s government shutdown. Such a must-pass bill at the end of the year often becomes a “Christmas tree” decorated with various policy riders and pet projects for members of both parties in Congress. But under this year’s tree, a fiscally irresponsible Santa Claus Congress might leave wealthy Americans three gifts that together could cost up to $1 trillion over the next ten years – all put on the nation’s credit card for young Americans to pay off for generations to come.

Read the full piece here.

Marshall for The Hill: “Is Corbyn handing Brexit to Boris Johnson?”

When British voters go to the polls Thursday, it probably will be their last chance to stop Brexit. If they don’t, Jeremy Corbyn will bear much of the blame.

Wait – isn’t the Labour Party leader running to oust the man actually driving the UK toward Brexit, Prime Minister Boris Johnson? Yes, but polls show Johnson’s Conservatives holding on to a double-digit lead over Labour. That’s remarkable, considering the sorry mess Tory leaders have made of Brexit over the last three years.

If Johnson has the electoral wind at his back, it’s not because he’s so mesmerizing. It’s mainly because of Corbyn’s epic unpopularity with UK voters. A mere 22 percent approve of Labour’s chief, while 58 percent say he’s doing badly. Thirty-six percent approve of Johnson, and 43 percent rate him negatively.

Read Will Marshall’s full op-ed here.

Stangler for Medium: “Announcing the New Urban Progress Initiative to Foster Metro Problem-Solving”

In its recently published The World in 2020, the editors of The Economist observe that the U.S. presidential race will “hog headlines” globally for the next year. One of the implications of this is that citizens everywhere — not just in America — will be inundated with debate and disagreement over large-scale national issues and policies. Immigration, Medicare-for-all, trade, climate change, and so on.

This is understandable of course: the president is elected by the whole country and will concern himself or herself with matters that are national in scope.

Yet many of the challenges that Americans and their communities struggle to address can best be solved locally. In many cases, they can only be solved locally. Take climate change, for example. On one hand, it doesn’t get any more national and transnational than this. On the other, national solutions, at least in the United States, are not in the offing anytime soon. States, cities, counties, and regions are best placed to adapt to climate change — even Republicans agree.

Read the full announcement.

Ritz for Forbes: “In Warren and Harris Falls, A Warning To Candidates About Overpromising”

The Warren bubble has burst. Two months ago, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was rocketing to the top of the presidential polls, at one point tying former Vice President Joe Biden for first place nationally and leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But she’s been in freefall for several weeks following the release of a controversial plan for financing Medicare for All, the single-payer health-care system championed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Where did it all go wrong? Some argue that Warren’s big mistake was in publishing any plan to pay for MFA at all. The reality, however, is that Warren isn’t falling because she planned too much, but rather because she didn’t plan carefully enough.

Read the full piece here.

PPI Metro Playbook – Columbia, SC

Over the final three decades of the 20th century, one of the defining features of American life was the abandonment and deterioration of historic urban centers. In cities large and small, from coast to coast, residents and dollars followed the interstate highways out of the old commercial downtowns and out to the suburbs.

Columbia, S.C., may be an exceptional town in some respects – it is, after all, both a state capital and the home of the University of South Carolina – but even these enviable assets could not save it from the centrifugal forces that were leeching the vitality of Downtown U.S.A. during the Seventies and Eighties. College kids and civil servants weren’t enough to prevent Macy’s and other department stores from either decamping for the ‘burbs or shuttering entirely. Our latest Metro Playbook:

 

On the Blog: Good News for Low Income Taxpayers

IRS Free File and VITA programs should be improved not discarded.

According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 90 percent of taxpayers hire paid tax preparers or utilize tax preparation software to file their taxes.

For low-income families the cost of tax preparation can significantly reduce the value of their refunds. A 2016 study by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) found that low-income taxpayers in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan areas can expect to spend between 13 and 22 percent of the average Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) refund when using tax preparation services.

One way working families can give themselves a “tax break” is to take advantage of the IRS Free File program. This public private partnership between the IRS and the software industry makes free online tax preparation and electronic filing available to 70 percent of the taxpaying population, and together with the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program serve between 2.5 to 3 million needy taxpayers a year.

In recent years some have criticized these programs for low enrollment rates and encouraging deceptive business practices.  But a recent third-party report commissioned by the IRS shows that the Free File program (while in need of improvement) has saved taxpayers $1.6 billion and is responsible for 53 million free returns since 2002.  

One way working families can give themselves a “tax break” is to take advantage of the IRS Free File program or the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program. The Free File program, public-private partnership between the IRS and the software industry, makes free online tax preparation and electronic filing available to 70 percent of the taxpaying population and currently serves 2.5 to 3 million taxpayers annually. The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program helps another 3 to 3.5 million taxpayers file every year.

Marshall for Medium: “Trump Has Earned Impeachment”

Originally shared on PPI’s Medium channel.

Donald Trump’s shambolic presidency has been one long, nauseating exercise in defining American democracy down. He’s relentlessly undermined the norms that uphold our Constitutional order, while abusing the powers of the presidency to pursue his own selfish interests at the expense of our nation’s interests.

There is no clearer example than his infamous July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski. Trump pressed Zelenski to dig up dirt on Vice President Joe Biden, promising a meeting between the two presidents and warmer Ukraine-U.S. ties in return. That Trump sees nothing wrong in soliciting a foreign country to interfere in America’s presidential election for his personal benefit tells you all you need to know about this man’s deformed moral sense. 

To her credit, Speaker Nancy Pelosi until now has resisted pressures from her party’s left wing to launch a premature bid to oust President Trump from office. Now, to protect the integrity of U.S. elections against a rogue president, she’s announced a House inquiry into impeachment. It’s the right and patriotic thing to do. 

True to form, Trump is trying to lie and bluster his way out of this self-inflicted crisis, polluting the air with ludicrous conspiracy theories, sliming the Biden family, and casting himself as the victim of Democrats, the media and the fictive “deep state.” He and his minions also are slurring Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, whose systematic amassing of devastating facts about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation should be a model for the impeachment inquiry.

To the everlasting shame of a once grand U.S. political party, Trump is abetted in his public disinformation campaign by the usual gaggle of robotically partisan Republicans. John McCain must be spinning in his grave as even his former protégé, Sen. Lindsay Graham, turns into a Trump sycophant. That only a handful of GOP leaders – including Sen. Mitt Romney – have been willing to venture even mild criticism of Trump’s outrageous abuse of power tells you all you need to know about how thoroughly he has corrupted his party. 

Now that Trump has brought impeachment on himself, it’s crucial for Congress to proceed in a disciplined and dignified way. The inquiry should steer clear of Trump’s long catalogue of misdeeds and focus narrowly on the complaint from the intelligence community whistleblower that the president sought to induce Ukrainian officials to investigate one of his main political rivals. That complaint cites “multiple U.S. Government officials” – including some who work at the White House – as sources. These people need to be heard from, with due privacy protections to shield them Trump’s vindictive wrath.  

The House inquiry should also focus on the White House attempt to cover up Trump’s efforts to get Zelensky to “play ball” by moving the record of Trump’s call onto a computer server reserved for top-secret information. Even if Trump describes his call with the Ukrainian leader as “perfect,” White House aides obviously felt otherwise.

Now the House needs to methodically build and lay before the public a solid case for impeachment. Speaker Pelosi will have her hands full discouraging histrionics from her party’s most reflexive partisans, which would likely play into the Trump-GOP strategy of dismissing the crisis as Washington swamp gas voters should ignore. Here the sure hand she’s shown on impeachment thus far inspires confidence. 

You’ll see reams of punditry on the subject, but no one knows how the impeachment drama will unfold. The conventional view today is that there’s no way 20 Republican Senators will join Democrats in voting to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. That means the U.S. government could grind to a halt over the next year as lawmakers get consumed in an impeachment battle that inevitably must end in failure – and that leaves Trump crowing over having yet again evaded the reckoning he so richly deserves. 

Maybe so, but we are past political calculation at this point. Every Member of Congress has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the U.S. constitution. Congress has a duty to bear witness to Trump’s vandalizing of American democracy – and put its case plainly before the voters who will make ultimately decide the issue next year. 

PPI Blog: A Simple Way to Help Formerly Incarcerated Americans Reenter Society

Roman Darker, PPI Summer 2019 Intern

We often take for granted the many essential tasks that require government-issued ID, such as a drivers’ license or a state-issued ID card. We need them to open a bank account, apply for a job, rent property, stay in hotels, get a P.O. box, and even for most interstate bus travel.  

People leaving prison often lack ID for various reasons: IDs expire, deteriorate, or are simply lost. Unfortunately for many people formerly incarcerated in the U.S., the need for new government ID is acute, while the process of obtaining it is commonly drawn out. Not having a government ID means not having the ability to get money necessary for food and shelter, nor the requisite documentation for the ladder. Even today, amid promising criminal justice reform, hurdles to getting a new state ID for formerly incarcerated people are extensive.

Most Americans have had government-issued ID, in the form of a drivers’ license, since the age of 16, so we don’t easily recall the process and documents necessary for obtaining our first ID. Depending on the state, applicants must supply one form of primary documentation and/or two secondary forms. Primary forms of documentation are government-issued documents or receipts that indicate a person’s full legal name and date of birth, such as a birth certificate. Secondary forms include both a name and evidence of residency, such as a utility bill or school records.

Prisoners incarcerated in a state other than the one that issued their previous ID will first have to locate their birth certificates, a time consuming process even in the best of circumstances. If born in the state of their release, obtaining a birth certificate can take around two weeks after the responsible agency receives the application, with some variance in the timeline depending on the state (1). However, if the formerly incarcerated person was serving a sentence in a state other than the one in which they were born, then this process can take up to eight weeks (2). 

Of course, this scenario assumes that the individual has a place to receive mail (which is difficult to secure without government identification) and knows the county in which they were born, the hospital they were born in, and their mother’s full maiden name (3). Also, formerly incarcerated people often do not have the luxury of being able to wait eight weeks to find employment. Many need money quickly for food and shelter; moreover, evidence shows recidivism becomes much less likely with stable employment (4).

Fortunately, some states are moving to help people released from prison get IDs. For example, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, and Wyoming have passed laws or forged interagency agreements aimed at providing inmates with state ID prior to or upon release (5).

Other states have turned to a simpler, cheaper (albeit less effective) option: allowing prisoners to exchange release documents and/or prison identification for state ID (6). One such state, Ohio, began providing “offender release cards” that contain all the information required by the federal Real ID Act, which lays out the minimum information necessary (7).

The former prisoner can then take that card to any Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and obtain a state ID. The introduction of the offender release cards was one of several reforms that correlated with a drop in the state’s three-year recidivism rate to 27.5 percent back in 2015, which was over 20 percentage points below the national average (8) 

Both federal and state agencies operating prisons should have gathered all of the information provided on the cards through the process of verifying the inmate’s identity. Giving it to prisoners upon release would be a radically pragmatic addition to standard release procedure, and allowing it to suffice for obtaining a state ID is in every state’s interest.

Let’s stop punishing prisoners after they’ve paid their debt to society. Helping newly released prisoners get an I.D. can give them a fresh start and reduce the cost of recidivism in the bargain.

—–

  1. Stephen Lilly, “How Long Does it Take to Receive a Birth Certificate?” PocketSense, November 6, 2018, https://pocketsense.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-receive-a-birth-certificate-12213245.html.
  2. Ibid.
  3. City of Columbus, Columbus Public Health Department, “Birth Certificate Walk-in or Mail Application,” Accessed July 29, 2019, file:///Users/romandarker/Downloads/BirthCert_Application.pdf. 
  4. G. Mesters, V. van der Geest, and C. Bijleveld, “Crime, Employment, and Social Welfare: An Individual-Level Study on Disadvantaged Males,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, no. 2 (2016), 159-90. doi:10.1007/s10940-015-9258-5.
  5. Juleyka Lantigua-Williams, “The Elusiveness of an Official ID After Prison: A bureaucratic maze within the federal government leaves scores of former inmates without the key to a fresh start,” The Atlantic, August 11, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-elusiveness-of-an-official-id-after-prison/495197/.
  6. Ibid.
  7. U.S. Congress, House, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate): Title II–Improved Security for Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards, H.R. 1268, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Introduced in House January 26, 2005, https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf.
  8. Brian Bull, “As Recidivism Rates Drop In Ohio, Officials Work To Keep Ex-Felons From ‘Revolving Door’ Of Prisons,” ideastream, September 24, 2015, https://www.ideastream.org/news/as-recidivism-rates-drop-in-ohio-officials-work-to-keep-ex-felons-from-revolving-door-of-prisons.

 

Janda for Medium: “Would Single Payer Set Back Progress on Paying for Value?”

While the left and center-left have been debating the wisdom of abolishing private insurance, another critical policy issue has not gotten much attention: The Medicare-for-all bill currently in question would create a single-payer health care system based on fee-for-service, disregarding the financial and outcome-based successes of Accountable Care Organizations, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Medicare Advantage, and other payment reforms emphasizing value-based care.

 

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here. 

Goldberg for the Washington Examiner: “Forcing More Litigation Isn’t the Answer to Litigation Abuse”

To avoid the expense and stress of going to court, Americans are turning to arbitration to settle workplace, and other, disputes. Free enterprise depends on businesses, employees, and consumers to be able to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. Plaintiffs’ lawyers, who file lawsuits for a living, are trying to convince Congress to take that option away.

The House recently held a hearing to ban pre-dispute arbitration agreements in employment, consumer, and anti-trust matters. Their supporters are attaching anti-arbitration clauses to various bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act this month, and want action on a comprehensive ban (the “FAIR Act”) before recess. They also are trying to leverage the #MeToo movement, which is critical to the success of women in the workplace, to suggest that courts are the only places for protecting people’s rights.

 

Read the full piece by Phil Goldberg by clicking here. 

Media Advisory: Building a #BetterBudget, A Forum on Investing in America’s Future and Tackling Our National Debt

WASHINGTON—The Progressive Policy Institute and House Blue Dog Coalition will host a lunchtime discussion today at the Longworth House Office Building about what leaders in Congress can do to invest in equitable growth while reducing our national debt.

America suffers from a shortsighted fiscal policy that promotes consumption today instead of investing in tomorrow. The federal government now spends more to service our growing national debt than it does on public investments in education, infrastructure, and scientific research combined. Meanwhile, a perfect storm of fiscally irresponsible tax cuts and an unwillingness to tackle escalating health and retirement spending are feeding trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. This is not a fiscal policy for strengthening America’s future – it’s blueprint for American decline.

At the event, PPI will release a comprehensive budget plan with over 50 policy recommendations for the next administration to make room for public investments in education, and infrastructure, and scientific research; modernize federal health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society; and create a progressive, pro-growth tax code that raises the revenue necessary to pay the nation’s bills.

Lunch will be provided. This event is open to the press.

Who:

  • Rep Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), Co-Chair of the House Blue Dog Coalition
  • Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Task Force on Fiscal Responsibility and Government Reform
  • Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT), Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Task Force on Fiscal Responsibility and Government Reform
  • Ben Ritz, Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future
  • Marc Goldwein, Senior Vice President at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
  • Emily Holubowich, Executive Director of the Coalition for Health Funding and Co-Founder of NDD United
  • Will Marshall, President of PPI, Moderator

When: Thursday, July 25, 2019
12:00 PM – 1:30 PM

Where: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1302
15 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, D.C. 20515

For press inquires, please contact Carter Christensen, media@ppionline.org or 202-525-3931.