Politics Archives - Page 21 of 80 - Progressive Policy Institute

Bledsoe for Forbes: “Tax Credits for Affordable Electric Vehicles Gain Speed, But Legislation Must Avoid Stop Signs

Posted on June 18, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As Congress begins to turn toward tax policies to help clean energy manufacturing, electric vehicle tax credits aimed directly at more affordable vehicles are gaining speed, just as a previous Forbes column and a Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) white paper urged several months ago.

The question now is will EV advocates in Congress, the U.S. auto industry and labor unions get the message and reform tax incentives to benefit middle-income Americans. Such revised tax credits focused on more affordable EVs will increase the chances new incentives become law, and will better allow the U.S. to reap the remarkable economic, health, manufacturing and environmental benefits of EVs. Yet as of now, new EV tax credits have been left entirely out of a so-called “tax extenders” outline circulating among House Ways and Means Committee members.

But a series of new developments are demonstrating that tax credits focused on affordable vehicles are gaining momentum.

Read the full piece on Forbes by clicking here.

Kim for Medium: “The Dismal State of America’s Working Class”

Posted on June 17, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Donald Trump staked his successful claim to the U.S. presidency with his appeal to the discontents of blue-collar America — i.e., non-college-educated Americans who have perhaps been the hardest hit by globalization and technological change.

The same voters are the target of some of Trump’s Democratic 2020 challengers, most notably former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, for instance, launched his campaign in a Pennsylvania union hall, declaring himself to be “a union man, period.”

Both Biden and Trump are right to focus their attentions on this group of Americans, whose fortunes have not risen with the overall economy but stagnated or even fallen. Without the benefit of higher education, working class Americans have been unable to compete for jobs demanding specialized technical skills, while the places they live have been hollowed out by shifts in global supply chains and the death of low-skilled manufacturing. So long as these workers feel left out of the economic mainstream, they will remain a potent political force, including in the upcoming 2020 election.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Gerwin for Medium: “Getting Democrats to ‘Yes’ on Trump’s New NAFTA”

Posted on June 17, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Trump is apparently a trade alchemist. He’s taken the core of NAFTA (the “worst trade deal ever”), liberally sprinkled in modern rules from the Trans Pacific Partnership (a “potential disaster”), and created a “brand new” trade deal — the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Trump’s hyperbole aside, the USMCA, while not perfect, would do a creditable job of preserving the essential rules of the road for North America’s highly integrated, $22 trillion economy. It would also update the decades-old NAFTA by, among other things, adding enforceable labor and environmental rules, promoting digital commerce, and cutting red tape for small business. Given Trump’s years of railing against NAFTA and repeated threats to terminate the Agreement, this is a positive development.

For the USMCA to enter into force, it must be approved by Congress, including the Democratic-controlled House. In recent weeks, Trump hasn’t been helping this process. Insulting and trying to bulldoze House Democratic leaders and threatening damaging new tariffs on Mexico are hardly constructive strategies.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Kim for Medium: “Being a moderate in Congress is expensive”

Posted on June 7, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Few jobs in politics might be tougher than to be a moderate member of Congress. Moderates typically hail from competitive districts, which means they enter office with targets on their backs from an opposition eager to wrest away their seats. And unlike their colleagues in safely blue or red seats, they must juggle the concerns of a diverse constituency, meaning less room to embrace the kinds of ideas that appeal to an activist base.

Moderates’ vulnerability also inevitably means a greater burden when it comes to campaign fundraising. In 2018, for instance, moderate Democratic candidates who won their campaigns spent twice as much as winning candidates from more liberal, comfortably blue districts. Moderates, in other words, literally paid the price for Democrats’ majority — a fact the progressive left should keep in mind as the 2020 election approaches.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Stangler for Medium: “What is the Future of Flexible Federalism?”

Posted on June 3, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Both Republicans and Democrats praise states as “laboratories of democracy” when they don’t hold the White House or Congress. Once in power in Washington, they rediscover their affinity for centralization and federal mandates.

Now, though, in an era of New Localism and widespread local and regional efforts to address persistent national challenges, a renewed approach to flexible federalism is needed. The next and future presidents need a framework for flexible federalism that permits them to encourage local innovation, empower regional leaders, and help share and spread lessons.

So, the president can’t do it all in terms of opening up more space for local innovation. But perhaps the federal government can lead the way, setting an example for the states. What might a framework for flexible federalism look like and how might it be applied?

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Stangler for Medium: “What does Flexible Federalism actually mean and look like?”

Posted on May 23, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Despite decades of steadily expanding federal authority, there is still a fairly well-defined division of labor among national, state and local governments. The latter, for example are chiefly responsible for law enforcement and criminal justice, land use, education (mostly), and so on.

In recent years, moreover, local government has been lauded for its effectiveness and responsiveness. Mayors have been told that they should run the world (maybe that’s why so many are running for president). In their excellent book, The New Localism, Bruce Katz and the late Jeremy Nowak declared that “power increasingly belongs to … the local level” because of regional collections of assets, institutions, and networks.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Stangler for Medium: “Democratic candidates should talk flexible federalism”

Posted on May 21, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Only Washington can solve our problems. That, evidently, is what any voter or casual follower of American politics might forgivably conclude after listening to the Democrats who are vying to take on President Trump next year.

Myriad proposals are being thrown around for the federal government to provide health care for all, free education for all, and guarantee everyone jobs. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have proposed the Green New Deal, which would essentially have the federal government take on the task of reinventing the energy industry and, well, the entire economy.

At this moment, however, what the United States does not need is further centralization in Washington. As PPI president Will Marshall has written, we have a “mismatch of scale” in terms of problem-solving. Washington is too big to deal effectively with life’s everyday problems yet too small to cope alone with things that spill over national borders: trade, climate, and action to contain pandemics, for example. That’s why we need more distributed problem-solving. And with Washington today mired in political dysfunction, we especially need more empowerment of state and, especially, local government.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Goldberg, Pincus Testify on Value of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements

Posted on May 17, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law held a hearing on pre-dispute arbitration clauses on Thursday, May 16, 2019. PPI Center for Civil Justice Director, Phil Goldberg, and Andy Pincus, who served as general counsel of the Commerce Department under President Clinton, testified in support of pre-dispute arbitration clauses because of the value they provide to consumers, employees and businesses in avoiding prolonged litigation and resolving disputes.

The other participants in the hearing included Gretchen Carlson, formerly of Fox News, and Lt. Commander Kevin Ziober, each of which discussed their experiences with pre-dispute arbitration. Deepak Gupta of Gutpa Wessler and Prof. Myriam Gilles of the Cardozo School of Law advocated for legislation that would ban the use of these agreements.

Mr. Goldberg, who was testifying on his own behalf, explained that progressives agree that the civil justice system is a public good and a keystone of American economic and political liberty because it facilitates the peaceful resolution of disputes. But, we also know that it has its limitations and is subject to abuse. The major reason that pre-dispute arbitration is being increasingly common is because it achieves these goals of peaceful, quick and conclusive dispute resolution often better than the civil justice system for many claims.

In particular, Mr. Goldberg continued, pre-dispute arbitration agreements can be critical for consumers, employees and businesses to have access to justice in cases that are of modest value and where there is a premium on maintaining relationships after the dispute is resolved. In litigation, plaintiffs’ firms often will not take cases valued at under $100,000 – $200,000, and the adversarial nature of litigation generally poisons the sides against each other.

In contrast to the litigation system, as Mr. Pincus explained on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, pre-dispute arbitration is a fair, less-complex, and lower cost alternative to our overburdened court system. Also, empirical studies show that consumers and employees do as well or better in arbitration as in litigation: they prevail on their claims at the same rate or more frequently, and they recover as much or more when they do prevail.

Mr. Goldberg’s written testimony is here and a video of the House hearing is here.

Mandel for Medium: “Tech/Telecom/Ecommerce sector grew by 7.3% in 2018, Political Implications”

Posted on May 14, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are vying to see who can be toughest on the tech sector. But here’s the paradox: New data shows that the tech boom is a major force driving down unemployment, lifting economic growth, and helping voters — precisely the people that the Democratic candidates are trying to reach.

The key here is that the economic data produced by the government is not typically presented in a form that easily shows the benefits of the tech boom. Software firms, for example, are spread across at least three different industries. Ecommerce — related activities are spread across at least two industries, electronic shopping and warehousing. And telecom includes at least two three industries, telecom services, communications equipment, and data processing and hosting.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Kane for Medium: “How Medicare-For-All Would Politicize Health Coverage”

Posted on May 7, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week the Trump administration announced that it would give health care workers greater leeway to refuse, on religious grounds, to provide services that enable birth control use, abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide. Specifically, the rule bars employers from requiring their employees to participate in delivering health care services they believe their religion proscribes. Such services could include scheduling a vasectomy, prepping a room for a sex change surgery or billing for an abortion.

Democrats slammed the move, which they described as a political plum tossed to religious conservatives who form an important part of President Donald Trump’s base. If they take back the White House in 2020, it won’t take them long to reverse the rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Long for Medium: “Under Legislation, Policymakers Would Micromanage Freight Rail Employment”

Posted on May 6, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans despise federal micromanagement, but that hasn’t kept Rep. Don Young of Alaska from hopping aboard the Washington-Knows-Best Express. He recently introduced a bill mandating that freight trains have a minimum of two crew members on board trains at all times.

While Young justifies his bill on safety grounds, the bill also appears to reflect pressure from rail workers’ unions fearful that automation is putting their members out of jobs.

Here’s the backstory: Following the fatal 2008 Chatsworth train collision in Los Angeles, President Bush signed the Rail Safety Improvement Act into law. The law required freight railroads, by the end of 2020, to integrate Positive Train Control (PTC) — a nationwide system of technologies that constantly process thousands of data points to stop a train before human error-caused accidents occur. One of the benefits of PTC was that it was a win-win for consumers and the railroads, enhancing safety and allowing railroads to boost productivity by moving to one-person crews somewhere down the road.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

Do-Something Congress No. 9: Reserve corporate tax cuts for the companies that deserve it

Posted on May 2, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

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 CHALLENGE: Good corporate citizenship is punished, not rewarded, in a market that puts profits first.

The pressure to return profits to shareholders – the tyranny of so-called “shareholder primacy” – is one reason companies have been disinvesting in their workers. As Brookings Institution scholars Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck have noted, many companies are increasingly reverting to “short-termist” behavior to avoid missing the quarterly earnings targets promised to shareholders (1). For instance, one notable survey of more than 400 CFOs found that 80 percent would “decrease discretionary spending on R&D, advertising and maintenance … to meet an earnings target” and 55 percent would “delay starting a new project” even if it meant sacrificing long-term value (2).

Companies also don’t seem to be raising wages or investing in worker training. Even as many firms have been reporting some of their best profits in years during this recovery (3), companies are cutting back on benefits like health insurance and offering less on-the-job training than they once did. And despite their recent uptick, workers’ wages haven’t caught up to where they should be. According to a Brookings Institution analysis, real wages for the middle quintile of workers grew by just 3.41 percent between 1979 and 2016, and actually fell slightly for the bottom fifth.

Corporate short-termism is bad for workers, who don’t get the wages and training they deserve. It’s also bad for companies, which are shortchanging their long-term health to satisfy short-term shareholder demands. But as long as current corporate culture remains fixated on companies’ stock prices, firms will feel tremendous pressure to put short-term profits above all other priorities – and often at workers’ expense.

THE GOAL: ENCOURAGE MORE BUSINESS TO BE “TRIPLE-BOTTOM LINE” CONCERNS THAT PUT PEOPLE ON PAR WITH PROFITS

A small but growing number of firms have begun to reject the hold of “shareholder primacy” and have organized themselves as “triple-bottom line” companies committed equally to social and environmental good as well as profit. Among these is the growing number of “benefit corporations” specially organized under state law with the purpose of “creating general public benefit.” Since 2010, 34 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation legally recognizing benefit corporations and protecting them from shareholder lawsuits for decisions that don’t maximize profits. Notably these states include Delaware, which is the leading “domicile” – or legal home – for most of America’s major companies. A significant number of benefit corporations have also won third-party certification from the nonprofit B Lab as “Certified B Corps” – essentially a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for benefit companies that have met strict standards for worker treatment, environmental stewardship and social responsibility. Among the many factors considered for certification are the share of workers who get formal training; rates of employee retention and internal promotion; the share of workers receiving tuition reimbursement or similar benefits for training and education; the extent to which “worker voice” plays a role in the company’s governance; pay equity; and company practices to reduce its environmental footprint.

According to the nonprofit B Lab, more than 2,500 businesses globally are certified B Corps. While the vast majority of these businesses are small, certified B Corps include such well-known U.S. and global brands as outdoor clothing maker Patagonia, Cabot Creamery, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, and New Belgium Brewery, the makers of Fat Tire beer. A small but growing number of B Corps are now publicly traded, including cosmetics company Natura; Sundial Brands, a subsidiary of Unilever; and Silver Chef, a company that finances commercial kitchen equipment purchases for restaurateurs. These firms are proof that companies with an avowed social mission can in fact succeed in a cutthroat capital market. If more companies follow suit, the result could be a dramatic and beneficial shift away from the stranglehold of shareholder primacy and toward better corporate practices.

THE SOLUTION: OFFER TAX BREAKS TO “BENEFIT CORPORATIONS” AND HIGH-ROAD FIRMS THAT DEMONSTRATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Many companies may feel they can’t “afford” to invest in their workers if it affects the bottom line for their shareholders. Targeted tax cuts to reward high road companies such as certified benefit corporations could, however, change the calculus for some companies and encourage them to change their behavior. These tax benefits could be structured in one of two ways:

Option One: Preferential tax rate.

As PPI has previously proposed, one option is to modify the new corporate tax rate to establish a preferential “public benefit corporation” rate for businesses that meet “high-road” requirements. Only the most deserving companies should qualify for the new 21 percent corporate tax rate; all others should pay a rate that is two to three percentage points higher.

To be entitled to these benefits, companies would meet one of two requirements: (1) that they be legally organized as “public benefit corporations” in their state and can provide good evidence of how they are fulfilling that mission; or (2) they must meet a minimum set of standards for worker treatment and investment, to be promulgated by a new standards-setting body authorized by Congress (effectively behaving like benefit corporations without the formality of legal status). To set the required standards, Congress could establish an inter-agency “workers’ council,” including representatives from labor and business, to establish guidelines for public benefit corporation rate eligibility (though enforcement would be left to the IRS). Companies would apply for a discounted tax rate in the same way that charities and nonprofits apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status, with the proviso that companies must also report annually on their performance, either in their public filings or in separate submissions to the IRS.

Option two: Benefit corporation tax credit.

A second option for structuring a high road company tax incentive is to create a tax credit for benefit corporations like the “sustainable business tax credit” offered by the city of Philadelphia. Under this benefit, first launched in 2012, Philadelphia businesses that are either certified B Corps or that can show they meet similar standards of social and environmental responsibility can qualify for a tax credit of up to $8,000 against their revenues. Up to 75 firms can apply for the credit on a first-come, first-served basis.

This structure might be especially beneficial for small and medium-sized benefit corporations structured as “pass-through” entities not subject to the corporate tax rate. As Jenn Nicholas, co-founder of the Philadelphia-based graphic design firm Pixel Parlor told Governing magazine, the credit has helped her afford higher wages and other benefits for her 10 workers. “It’s a challenge to be profitable and provide benefits to our employees,” Nicholas said. “Every tiny bit helps, and it feels like somebody is looking out for us when the general climate [for small businesses] is the opposite” (10).

While some policymakers have proposed requiring companies to treat their workers more fairly, tax incentives for high-road businesses are a better approach. Top-down mandates tend to invite resistance or evasion and will not succeed in changing the overall spirit of corporate culture in favor of shareholders over workers. Encouraging companies to reform themselves will ultimately prove the more enduring tactic. As more businesses see that they can indeed “do good and do well,” the grip of shareholder primacy will weaken, and workers will benefit.

Sources:

1) Galston, William A., and Elaine C. Kamarck. More builders and fewer traders: a growth strategy for the American economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2015.

2) Graham, John R., Campbell R. Harvey, and Shiva Rajgopa. The Economic Implications of Corporate Financial Reporting. N.p., 2005.

3) Bureau of Economic Analysis. “Gross Domestic Product, Third Quarter 2018 (Second Estimate); Corporate Profits, Third Quarter 2018 (Preliminary Estimate).” News release. November 28, 2018. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/gross-domestic-product-third-quarter-2018-second-estimate-corporate-profits-third-quarter.

4) Kim, Anne. Tax Cuts for the Companies That Deserve It. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, 2018.

5) Shambaugh, Jay, Ryan Nunn, Patrick Liu, and Greg Nantz. Thirteen Facts About Wage Growith. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2017.

6) B Lab. “State by State Status of Legislation.” benefitcorp.net. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://benefitcorp.net/policymakers/state-by-state-status.

7) Title 8: Corporations, Delaware Code §§ CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW; Subchapter XV. Public Benefit Corporations-361-386 (2017).

8) B Lab. “Certified B Corporation: About B Corps.” Benefitcorp.net. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://bcorporation.net/about-b-corps

9) Id.

10) Kim, Anne. “The Rise of Do-Gooder Corporations.” Governing, Jan 2019.

PPI’s Ben Ritz Discusses Social Security Trustees Report on C-SPAN

Posted on May 1, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Ben Ritz joined an expert panel on Capitol Hill last week to discuss the recently published report by Social Security’s trustees. The annual report projected that the program’s trust funds face insolvency within the next 16 years, after which point beneficiaries face the prospect of an across-the-board cut of 23 percent. All panelists encouraged policymakers to close the gap between Social Security’s revenues and spending sooner rather than later, which Ben noted is critical for ensuring the changes are fair to younger and older Americans alike.

Watch the full panel here on C–SPAN.

Kane for Medium: “Health care debate heats up in Iowa”

Posted on April 16, 2019September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week PPI returned to Des Moines for a second “Conversation with Iowans,” this time about progressive alternatives to nationalized health care. The ideas forum featured former Colorado Gov. and presidential aspirant John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield, a Des Moines business owner, PPI President Will Marshall and yours truly.

A strong turnout and often impassioned debate underscored that health care — the fear of losing it or not being able to afford it — is still a burning issue for Americans, just as it was during last year’s midterm election. Many participants told gut wrenching personal stories about their maddening interactions with our complex and costly health delivery system. One woman, for example, relayed how her Type 1 diabetes diagnosis had led to multiple hospital stays, medical debt, and anxiety every month over covering her insulin costs.

Read the full piece on Medium by clicking here.

The Australian App Economy: 2019 Update

Posted on April 8, 2019 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Apple introduced the first iPhone in 2007 just as the Global Recession was about to begin. While central bankers and national leaders struggled with a deep financial crisis and stagnation, the fervent demand for iPhones and the wave of smartphones that followed provided a rare force for growth.

The smartphone also triggered a new era for job creation around the world. Apple opened the App Store in 2008, followed by Android Market (now Google Play) and other app stores. This unexpected “side-effect” of the smartphone quickly took on a life of its own, creating a whole new class of iOS and Android developers who were writing mobile applications that could run on smartphones anywhere.

It’s not an exaggeration to speak of a global App Economy, with an army of app developers writing mobile applications for billions of users. For businesses, apps have become the essential front door for their customers, providing access to everything from shopping to customer service to banking services to entertainment to information to essential health knowledge.

What’s more, the App Economy still has room to grow. Internet of Things (IoT) mobile connections are estimated to reach 4.1 billion by 2024, increasing at an annual growth rate of 27 percent.2 Consumers and businesses are increasingly interfacing with physical objects and processes through their smartphones and tablets via the IoT. Companies and individuals are utilizing apps to control everyday items and processes such as smart homes, e-commerce shopping, manufacturing analytics, smart. This report updates our 2017 paper, “The Rise of the Australian App Economy”.

[gview file=”https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PPI_AustraliaAppEconomy_V4-1.pdf” title=”PPI_AustraliaAppEconomy_V4 (1)”]

Bledsoe for Forbes: “Tax Credits for Affordable Electric Vehicles Gain Speed, But Legislation Must Avoid Stop Signs

As the idea of “free college” gains popularity, Virginia and Iowa are instead focused on career and technical education.