issue: Politics

The Obama Trade Agenda: Five Things for Progressives to Like

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama went all in on international trade.

The Administration has already been aggressively pursuing the most ambitious set of trade agreements in decades—including potentially groundbreaking deals with 11 Asian-Pacific countries (the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP), and the European Union (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or T-TIP), as well as agreements in key sectors like services, information technology, and environmental products.

Now, to set the stage for eventual Congressional approval for these deals, the President has launched an Administration-wide effort to obtain Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) from Congress. Under TPA, Congress sets detailed priorities and extensive consultation requirements for U.S. trade negotiators, and agrees to follow special expedited procedures for agreements that meet these rules.

Congressional Republicans largely support TPA and the Administration’s trade agenda. There is less support, however, among Congressional Democrats, many of whom have doubts about new trade deals. And, because trade has long been a difficult political issue, it’s quite tempting for these trade skeptics to readily side with those who have consistently opposed trade agreements.

Download “2015.02-Gerwin_The-Obama-Free-Trade-Agenda”

 

Reuters: One last chance to save the Internet – from the FCC

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the Federal Communications Commission readies new net-neutrality rules this week, congressional Democrats face a choice: Should they work with the Republicans who control Congress to help pass new rules, or should they stay on the sidelines and leave the matter to a volatile regulatory process, subject to possible undoing in the courts?

I disagree with neutrality — the idea that everything on the Internet should travel at the same speed, whether it’s the remote monitoring of a cardiac device or a video of a cat. But both critics and advocates of neutrality would likely agree that a new law is the best way to set new policy — not regulatory decrees.

Let’s start with some history. The Communications Act of 1934 says phone companies are like public utilities and should be strongly regulated. But the 1996 Telecommunications Act, championed by President Bill Clinton, labeled the Internet as an “information service” that should be lightly regulated. That seems like a good decision: The Internet has grown spectacularly in this unregulated format.

But last month, Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, proposed treating the Internet like a public utility, run for the public good. He said that the Web should be regulated much like the Ma Bell telephone companies of generations ago. Why this sudden turnaround?

Continue reading at Reuters.

The Hill: Ukraine crisis tests the West

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Thanks to determined diplomacy by Germany and France, Russia agreed Wednesday to a new cease-fire in Ukraine, to begin Sunday. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel was anything but triumphant, calling the deal a mere “glimmer of hope” for peace.

Merkel has good reasons for curbing her enthusiasm. The previous cease-fire agreement reached last September didn’t hold for long. And Russian strongman Vladimir Putin still holds the high cards in any peace negotiation with Ukraine and the West.

Under the new truce, both pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces are to pull back heavy weapons from the front. But the deal still leaves separatists in control of a big chunk of territory in eastern Ukraine. If the cease-fire is violated and fighting resumes, Ukraine will again find itself in an unequal fight with rebels amply supplied with Russian weapons and, Kiev says, regular Russian troops.

Continue reading at The Hill.

CNN: The problem with Obama’s budget

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

Continue reading at CNN.

The Hill: For free community college, completion is key

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Obama’s proposal for free community college is an ambitious effort to address critical gaps in America’s post-secondary education and career training systems. However, it may fall flat before it even gets off the ground, and that’s not just because of its high price tag. It’s because community college success depends not on how many students enroll, but how many complete.

Under President Obama’s proposal, all Americans will have access to two years of free tuition at our nation’s public community colleges. The only requirements are to maintain at least C+ grades and to be making “steady progress” toward a degree. It calls for the federal government to cover three-quarters of the estimated $60 billion cost, with states covering the rest.

Certainly, increasing community college enrollment is a good start for boosting youth employment prospects. Young Americans without a post-secondary degree are not faring well in today’s workforce. My own research shows how they have been gradually pushed down and out of the labor market, in a phenomenon I call the “Great Squeeze.”

Continue reading at The Hill.

Politico: Barack Obama nears limit of executive powers

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted by David Nather in Politico on President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech:

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, said Obama can still “set the terms of the debate” through executive orders, but what’s at stake is broader than a few executive actions: “Nothing is more important to his legacy than making sure that economic growth works for everyone.”

Continue reading at Politico.

The Hill: It’s time for Congress to end the net neutrality wars

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

At the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas last week, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler announced his intention to reclassify Internet service as a public utility in order to achieve President Obama’s laudable goal of a free and open Internet. Because this outdated “solution” has tied the FCC in knots for years, and is fraught with legal risk, it’s time for Congress to step in and lift net neutrality out of the regulatory morass.

By making equal access to the Internet the law of the land, Congress could settle this contentious issue once and for all. It should create a new source of authority to regulate the dealings between Internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers — outside the creaky confines of Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. In this way, Congress can more effectively meet the president’s net neutrality goals without recourse to outdated telecom regulations that could raise broadband prices, impede investment in the core of the network, and pull content providers and the services they offer within the ambit of archaic telephone regulations.

A bipartisan consensus is forming around the need for a legislative solution to the net neutrality problem, which has lingered for nearly a decade without resolution by the FCC. Just this week, Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) announced that he’s in discussions with the panel’s chairman, John Thune (R-S.D.) on a targeted, bipartisan solution. The Senate is now in a race against Wheeler to find a solution.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Wall Street Journal: A Rare Bipartisan Success for Congress

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in Wall Street Journal piece regarding the rare showing of bipartisanship by Congress in passing the recent spending bill and whether or not the public should expect more of that moving forward.

“Most Republicans agreed…that this wasn’t the right time for them to flex their new political muscles—that will come next year when they control the entire Congress,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic organization. “They’d rather go home for Christmas than join Ted Cruz in a crusade to shut down the government.”

Read the piece in its entirety on Wall Street Journal.

USA Today: Old rules make Internet more expensive

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) votes to “reclassify” the Internet as a public utility, U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for access to the Internet.

How deep? By our estimates, broadband subscribers would have to pay about $70 annually in additional state and local fees. When you add it all up, reclassification could add a whopping $15 billion in new user fees to consumer bills.

At issue is whether Internet service providers (ISPs) — telco and cable companies — should be regulated as public utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Activists pushing for this approach — echoed recently by President Obama — claim it is the only way to protect “net neutrality.” Critics argue that there are better ways to ensure an open Internet without subjecting ISPs to archaic regulations designed for the old Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

Missing from this debate until now is any serious assessment of what Title II regulation would cost broadband consumers. So we ran the numbers and discovered there is nothing but bad news on this front. Once Internet access service is labeled a “telecommunications service” under Title II, consumer broadband services could become subject to a whole host of new taxes and fees.

Although these fees are paid by broadband providers, history shows — and economic models of competitive markets predict — that these charges are passed along to customers, just as they are now on your phone bill.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act pending in Congress might limit the impact of some of these taxes and fees, but not all of them. And while the FCC has the power to limit the amount of the federal Universal Service Fee, recent history shows the FCC is more likely to increase USF than reduce it. Perhaps most telling — even the staunchest defenders of Title II acknowledge that various federal and state authorities could impose billions in new charges if broadband is reclassified as a utility.

Continue reading at USA Today.

 

 

CNN: We’re all culpable over CIA torture

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

While studiously avoiding the word “torture,” CIA Director John Brennan told reporters on Thursday that the aggressive interrogation program yielded information that helped the agency find Osama bin Laden. He also called the Senate Intelligence Committee’s damning report on CIA abuses “flawed” by partisanship, as well as “exaggerations and misrepresentations.”

Brennan’s comments are certain to pour oil on the already raging debate over what constitutes torture, how effective it is and who authorized what in the chaotic days and months after the 9/11 attacks. They also put the Obama administration squarely in the crossfire between Democrats defending the committee’s handiwork and Republicans and former CIA chiefs trashing it.

The culmination of a six-year investigation, the committee Democrats’ report was intended to provide a moment of moral reckoning for America. Instead, it has underscored Washington’s inability to rise above partisan truths and forge a common view on how to defend the country from terrorist attacks.

As an exercise in political accountability, a comprehensive report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects after 9/11 is overdue. In its otherwise commendable zeal to avert further terrorist attacks, the agency sometimes overstepped the bounds of decency.

Continue reading at CNN.

Holding out hope on Iran

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Not much has gone right in the Middle East during President Obama’s second term. The White House has been hoping that a nuclear deal with Iran would yield the foreign policy success Washington badly needs after a string of reverses across the region.

But after a weekend of last-ditch diplomacy in Vienna, the deadline for striking such a deal expired yesterday. The anticlimactic result was an agreement to keep talking.

Even that is too much for hardline skeptics, here and abroad, who believe Iran is stringing the world along and has no intention of giving up its nuclear program. In their view, extending the talks another seven months grants Tehran unearned relief from economic sanctions as well as immunity from military strikes to destroy its nuclear facilities.

Continue reading at the Hill.

PPI Statement on President Obama’s Endorsement of Title II Regulation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall released the following statement today after President Obama’s announcement urging the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to regulate broadband Internet as a public utility under its Title II authority:

“’I hear you,’ President Obama assured voters in his post-midterm press conference last week. But his endorsement today of subjecting the Internet to heavy-handed regulation suggests otherwise.

“In fact, the president’s statement is exactly the wrong reaction to the election. It endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.

“The shellacking the president and his party suffered last week was largely about the economy. In exit polls, 70 percent of voters said they were mostly concerned about the economy, and an overwhelming majority of them described economic conditions as ‘not so good’ or poor.

“If the election yields any lesson, it is that Democrats need to offer the public a more convincing plan for accelerating economic growth and restoring shared prosperity. Such a plan should begin by building on America’s comparative advantages in digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

“Imposing public utility-style regulation on the Internet points in the opposite direction. It would very likely reduce private investment in broadband, which as PPI has documented in a series of policy reports, is a prime catalyst for job and business creation in the United States.

“It is also inconsistent with the Democratic Party’s legacy. After all, the Internet took off in the 1990s, thanks in significant degree to the ‘light touch’ approach to regulation adopted by the Clinton-Gore Administration.

“We hope President Obama will reflect on that legacy of pro-growth progressivism and reconsider his endorsement of Title II regulation of the Internet.”

How Democrats Can Recover

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Electoral defeats are painful, but clarifying. As Democrats survey the damage left by a larger-than-expected Republican wave, it’s possible to discern four signposts on the road to a progressive recovery.

First, the party needs to start working on a post-Obama agenda.

Anti-Obama sentiment engulfed Democratic candidates everywhere, dragging red-state senators underwater and nearly drowning seemingly safe incumbents in purple or blue states, like Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. The main “issue” in all these campaigns was the Democratic candidates’ supposed fidelity to Barack Obama. Only in this sense did Republicans succeed in nationalizing the midterm, but it was enough.

In his press conference Wednesday, a rather clueless President Obama took no responsibility for the wipeout and conveyed no urgency about making course corrections. This suggests that while Obama will be the main bulwark against GOP hubris and extremism over the next two years, Democrats will have to look elsewhere for the new ideas and arguments they need to regain the political initiative and rebuild support for progressive goals.

Second, those ideas won’t come from the party’s current congressional leadership, either.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are able legislative tacticians, tough partisan warriors, and world-class fundraisers. The charge now being leveled against them by some on the left—that they haven’t been aggressive enough in confronting Republicans—is ludicrous.

But agile tactics and fighting spirit aren’t enough, especially if voters think they are mainly in the service of expanding benefits for favored party constituencies. What Democrats need is a larger vision for restoring shared prosperity that can unite the interests of core partisans with those of moderate and independent voters. The current leadership has discouraged creative thinking by party pragmatists about ways to speed up economic growth, improve the regulatory environment for innovation, or make government work better. Instead, they’ve enforced conformity to focus-grouped “messages” tailored narrowly to different slices of the electorate.

Yes, I know that raising the minimum wage is popular. But it didn’t lift Democrats last Tuesday, and neither did alarmist rhetoric about a “war on women.” Next time around, Democrats will need to offer voters something more inspiring than a tired pastiche of messages aimed at bribing or scaring voters. It’s time to replace the current team with a younger crop of rising leaders open to bigger, bolder ideas for tackling America’s big problems.

Continue reading at The Daily Beast.

 

 

Wall Street Journal: Sullen Voters Set to Deliver Another Demand for Change

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article on public dissatisfaction facing both parties, examining how the trend of “change elections” reflects growing discontent among American voters.

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic research group, predicts that public frustration with politics will only intensify after the midterms, and will be a central issue for both parties in 2016.

“There will be tremendous pressure on the presidential candidates,” said Mr. Marshall, “to say how they are going to get out of this impasse and break the stalemate.”

Read the rest of the article at Wall Street Journal.

The Hill: Midterms confirm political stalemate

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Although Republicans won a more sweeping victory than expected in yesterday’s midterm elections, the results tell us surprisingly little about what Americans expect of their political leaders.

Instead, the outcome confirms a new pattern of alternating partisan victories every two years, as Republicans dominate midterm elections and Democrats marshal superior electoral strength in presidential elections. The pressing political question today is how to break that pattern, which otherwise augurs deepening polarization and paralysis in Washington.

Exultant Republicans, of course, are hailing their sweep as a repudiation of President Obama. That’s true, up to a point. Midterm elections always are partly a barometer of public attitudes toward the sitting president, and there was no mistaking yesterday’s thumbs down verdict.

But if voters are dissatisfied with Obama’s performance, there’s little evidence they have fallen for Republicans or want the country to take a sharp right turn. On the contrary, exit polls found that voters disapprove of the Republican Party even more than Obama. Strikingly, 61 percent said they are dissatisfied or even angry with Republican leaders in Congress, even as they propelled GOP victories across the board.

Continue reading at The Hill.