Politics Archives - Page 37 of 83 - Progressive Policy Institute

A Fresh Approach to International Investment Rules

Posted on May 19, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Money makes the world go round. Although money flows are global, the rules governing investment are bilateral and regional. Cross-border investment is governed by a patchwork of over 3,000 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), regional and bilateral trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters, as well as the trade-related investment provisions of the World Trade Organization. While many states have signed international investment agreements (IIAs), they do not cover all states, investors, or categories of investments. Taken in sum, these IIAs have many problems, including:

The 3,000-plus IIAs vary significantly and do not offer clear and uniform guidelines to protect international investment.
Tribunals have no effective means of enforcing their decisions.
Some investors and states take advantage of the hodgepodge of rules to “game the system” through forum-shopping and other strategies.
Investors are increasingly challenging government regulatory or budgetary policies that reduce the value of their investments as “indirect expropriations.”
Citizens in the United States, EU, and other countries are increasingly critical of the balkanized, uneven investor-state arbitration process.

We believe it is time for a fresh approach to international investment agreements: one that builds a more universal, consistent, and accountable system. In this policy brief, we put forward three concrete steps that can promote and protect foreign investment, advance the rule of law, preserve the ability of governments to regulate, and link trade and investment.

Step 1: At the behest of the G-20, the WTO and international organizations with investment competence should establish a committee of experts to develop a code of norms and best practices. G-20 members should use this code as a template for future investment agreements and encourage all WTO member states to sign up.

Step 2: WTO members should set up an Investment Appellate Body to review and if necessary, override controversial arbitrations where the rights of investors or governments were inadequately protected. The Investment Appellate Body will stand beside the WTO’s Trade Appellate Body.

Step 3: To give the Investment Appellate Body teeth, one or more WTO member states should ask the WTO Secretariat to explore the feasibility of using trade policy to retaliate against states that fail to comply with its decisions.

Download the complete report.

The Case for Pro-growth Progressivism

Posted on May 5, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The many unanticipated events seen over the past 20 years should leave us with some humility about our ability to identify coming political and economic challenges. Will the next two decades be marked by surplus labour due to joberoding technological change, or by labour shortages in countries with stagnant and ageing populations? Will wealth be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, or will economic success become dispersed as smart people around the world take advantage of the Internet to create new businesses? Will the global economy stay volatile or return to the moderation that predated the financial crisis?

Here is what we do know: the developed, richer countries are undergoing a collective crisis of faith, rooted around slow growth. The major advanced countries have seen their real per-capita GDP rise at a depressingly low 0.8% rate over the past ten years. By comparison, the annual rate of growth was 1.8% in the ten years ending 2007 and 2.6% in the 1980s. A slow, halting recovery has left many citizens pessimistic about their country’s economic prospects and their government’s ability to be effective. And that pessimism, in turn, has helped nurture an ugly bestiary of political and policy dysfunction, from Washington to Brussels to Tokyo. The result is a loss of political flexibility and adaptability, a painful ossification that emphasises protecting the status quo rather than embracing innovation. This painful ossification leaves us more vulnerable to the next crisis or challenge, whether political, technological, or biological.

1. Pro-growth progressivism
Economics and politics are intertwined in a mutually reinforcing crisis of confidence. Tackling this deficit of trust is job one for the world’s political leaders. Rather than just hope the global economy picks up, progressives should coalesce behind an ambitious plan to accelerate growth, boost innovation and revive upward mobility. The goal is to produce a flexible, dynamic economy that can deal with whatever challenges arise. We deserve better than a choice between the right’s anti-government populism and the left’s anti-business populism. That’s why we need ‘pro-growth progressivism.’ Pro-growth progressivism will take on varied forms in different countries, but it typically has these features.

2. Focus on growth, rather than redistribution
The slow-growth figure cited above was for GDP, which includes not just wages but returns to capital as well. That means even before we get to the question of distribution, the whole economic pie is growing at an extremely slow rate. Absent more robust growth, the politics of redistribution becomes an empty exercise in moral posturing. Moreover, a narrow focus on ‘fairness’ may misdirect resources that otherwise could be used to enlarge the nation’s productive base. It also fosters an ‘us versus them’ mentality that, by reinforcing polarisation, can only make it harder to build consensus around economic initiatives that benefit everyone.

Without growth, the developed countries can’t generate sufficient national income to simultaneously finance public investment in world-class infrastructure, science and skills; and, meet the soaring health and retirement costs of an ageing society. What’s more, we don’t have the resources to deal with unexpected crisis or challenges. That’s why restoring economic dynamism must be progressives’ top priority. Putting the cart of redistribution before the horse of economic growth turns politics into a zero-sum fight over a shrinking pie. This approach might win an election here or there, but it is not a durable foundation on which to build and sustain progressive majorities.

3. Put a priority on investment, rather than consumption
An essential ingredient for encouraging growth is investment in physical, human, and knowledge capital. Investment is spending on the future. By contrast, consumption, almost by definition, is about the resources devoted to today’s needs and pleasures. But these are just the economic definitions – investment and consumption also represent different attitudes towards the future and towards the next generation. Right now the developed countries are ageing in a way that has more and more older citizens being supported by a slow-growing or even shrinking working-age population. To make that work, the younger generation needs updated infrastructure, the newest equipment, the best education and training, and the most innovative technologies – and all these require resources.

4. Encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, rather than business as usual
In addition to investment, true growth needs innovative ideas and technology and the entrepreneurs to put them into practice. And it needs government to encourage innovation, or at least not get in the way with excessive regulations. One good example: The Internet of Things – the idea that in the future, all objects will be interconnected and have the ability to automatically transfer data without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction. The Internet transformed digital industries, which represent about 20% of the economy. But the Internet of Things has the potential to transform physical industries, such as manufacturing, transportation, public service and healthcare, which represent the other 80% of the economy. The Internet of Things could make an enormous difference in growth and job creation – but only if excess government regulations don’t make it too expensive or time-consuming to put into place.

5. Mobility flows from innovation and growth
One of the great advantages of growth and innovation is that they create more opportunities for true mobility. That’s certainly true in the United States, where growth in the tech/info sector has drawn more minorities into well-paying jobs. From 2006 to 2013, the number of Hispanics in computer and mathematical occupations rose by 58% and the number of blacks rose by 41%.

6. Foster innovation in government
Government has an essential role to play in pro-growth progressivism, providing the necessary safety net and the regulatory structure that makes the economy work. At the same time, progressives must focus on making government work better, so that it’s felt as a positive force in people’s lives. One aspect of innovation in government is an emphasis on flexibility, rather than strict rules. In the United States, PPI has proposed a Regulatory Improvement Commission, which would focus on making regulations better and more flexible, rather than doing away with them altogether.

This article was originally published by Policy Network, please find the original article here.

FCC’s Wheeler Plays Hand Courts Dealt Him

Posted on April 29, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s determination that he can allow Internet Service Providers to offer differentiated service options to websites and content providers – an ability that “net neutrality” advocates regard as decidedly non-neutral – surprised many people. But perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Wheeler’s announcement resolved a mystery created by a recent court decision that the FCC lacked the power to regulate the way broadband providers manage their networks. Specifically, in a case brought by Verizon, the Court denied Wheeler and the FCC authority to specify that there must be only one tier of service on the Internet, the essence of the neutrality program. But the Court also recognized his authority to regulate broadband as part of the FCC’s larger obligation to promote the Internet.

Predicting that it was time for Wheeler to lead the FCC past the neutrality debate and modernize the regulation of the Internet was not necessarily an act of clairvoyance – it was simply the product of a level-headed reading of the situation. I participated in a Progressive Policy Institute forum last month in which a variety of experts, including some advocates of net neutrality, came to a surprising degree of consensus about Chairman Wheeler’s response to the U.S. District Court’s decision. Basically, we thought he had three options for regulating the Internet, and two of them weren’t going to work.

The first, and most radical, would be to declare that the Internet was really “just a telephone network” and therefore subject to the most intrusive regulations the FCC can muster. That would have been a radical step from several perspectives. First, and most obviously, saying that the Internet is really “just like” the Ma Bell phone system is like saying a Maserati is “just like” a Model T and should be subject to the same speed limits. But it should also be recalled (particularly by those who think the Internet should be a state-owned “public utility”) that the FCC’s regulation of phones was premised on a sanctioned monopoly in which companies invested without significant risk. In contrast, the modern Internet was built by over a trillion at-risk, private dollars pouring into competing technological platforms. On these and a variety of other bases, “reclassifying” Internet as telephony would have a very hard time passing the laugh test in court.

(Nor, in fact, might that resolve the problem – read the original 1934 Telecommunications act and you’ll be surprised to see that it’s quite comfortable with differentiated services, so long as they’re made available to all. Which is, of course, exactly Wheeler’s position eighty years later.)

A second option was to go to the Congress for explicit legislative authority to regulate conduct on the Internet. I’m not a professional political analyst but…good luck with that.

To be fair, there may be an emerging middle ground in the Congress for an Internet policy perspective that might not be far from where Wheeler is today; in the past few weeks, for example, over 70 House Democrats signed a letter calling for open and unrestricted spectrum auctions, a sharp departure from the view held by some of their colleagues that the winners of those auctions should be prejudged by the FCC. That’s a vote of confidence in competition. But some in Congress advocate not just for net neutrality, but for extended public ownership and control of the Internet, while many on the other side doubt that we need any regulatory protections whatsoever, let alone an effort to extend the Internet’s role in such areas as health and education, or addressing the “digital divide.” So there’s no obvious consensus on any issues of Internet regulation, let alone imposing neutrality through regulation.

Which leaves Wheeler with a third option – to play the hand the Court dealt him. And he appears to be doing so smartly, by allowing ISPs to offer websites and content providers (often called “edge providers”) prioritization for those services that want it (perhaps high-definition video conferencing or real-time, interactive services such as health, teaching, or gaming and entertainment) while letting the rest of Internet traffic – your e-mail sharing a video of a cat playing the xylophone – to move as it always has, unabated. He also made it clear that allowing some content to move on “express lane” terms is not the same as blocking other content, and that he would reserve the right to make sure that any prioritization deals were “commercially reasonable.” Hopefully, this will mean a case-by-case review of actual transactions that have inflicted actual harm on an actual someone, not making judgments that reflect nothing more than the sensibilities of bureaucrats. In fact, the PPI panel was also in broad agreement on this point – that it was time to embrace a new regulatory perspective that allowed “experimentation” in the way service is provided and that adjudicated contentious issues after the fact and after demonstrated harm has occurred, rather than through blanket, a priori, regulatory pre-emptions.

Wheeler seems to have embraced this approach. He’s getting us off “Square Zero” by recognizing that tiered service has its place, and putting to rest the neutrality debate that my colleague Hal Singer said last month “is sucking all the oxygen out of the room.” In that sense, Wheeler’s most important accomplishment in announcing his view might be to make clear that opponents have mischaracterized “prioritization” as being the same as “blocking competing content,” “permitted innovation,” threatening the “open Internet,” and other slogans.

These catchphrases are commonly accepted by many media outlets, but now have been put to shame, and hopefully, rest. Prioritization doesn’t change the reality that everyone who wants to bring content to the Internet can do so without impediment; in fact, the ISPs desperately want them to do so, since that’s the value proposition of what they’re selling. Making that clear only ratifies what the market has already decided. Nor does it mean that the ISPs will decide who can innovate and who can’t any more than the post office decides who can send a letter and who can’t when it offers First Class Mail and then Priority Express. Wheeler has, to his credit, made clear what the real issues are.

And he appears to be disregarding the complaint that prioritization would be unfair to “the little guy.” If that were the standard, every sector of the economy would come under regulation. The little guy has to pony up to put his product on supermarket shelves or to buy a $5 million Super Bowl spot. The Internet will remain a more competitive sector than virtually any other in the economy. In fact, the Internet is already tilted against the small, start-up website; Big Websites already have speed advantages over the “little guy” due to pervasive caching of content. Prioritization may make it easier for the “little guy” to catch up.

Let me make two predictions. First, “prioritization” will change the Internet less than many think. Network speeds in the US are increasing rapidly, and we have gone from 22^nd in the world to 8^th in a very short time (once the courts removed regulatory impediments to sustained investment). And, we are one of the few nations on Earth that have competing platforms bringing broadband to the consumer – phone companies, cable companies, wireless (where we lead the world), and satellite, as opposed to the nations that staked their bets on a national phone company and are coming to regret it. So our prospects for leadership are excellent. I’m not sure how many sites will jump at the chance to improve their stream given how good the system as a whole is becoming.

And the second prediction is that Wheeler has now broken the ice and will lead the FCC into a series of decisions in which a ‘sensible center” finally holds sway. This would include accelerated auctions of spectrum now held by the government and broadcasters, open auctions for new spectrum, allowing the market for “peering” and other backbone transactions to evolve as any other competitive market would, and – one hopes – a revitalized National Broadband Plan to realize the Internet’s social potential. In all of these cases, the FCC Chairman can reproduce the successful strategy he employed to move the “neutrality” debate forward – seizing the only realistic option in front of him and running with it.

Everett Ehrlich is the president of ESC Company, and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Axelrod has something Miliband needs: an understanding of swing voters

Posted on April 20, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s not unusual for Britain, ahead of a national election, to be swarming with American political consultants. What is odd is seeing top members of President Obama’s political team deploy to opposite sides in the coming battle.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief consigliere, has just signed on to help Labour craft its strategy for next year’s election. But in what many Democrats regard as a dumbfounding act of apostasy, Jim Messina, who ran Obama’s 2012, has hired out to David Cameron’s Tories.

Perhaps the two high-priced operatives, who know each other well, will simply cancel each other out. But in truth they bring very different skills to their respective campaigns. Messina is a master organiser who oversaw Obama’s state-of-the-art voter mobilisation effort in 2012.

Axelrod is a strategist who helped Obama wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton and go from first-term Senator to first black President in 2008.

It’s hard to say how Axelrod’s talents will translate into the British context. The impact of campaign consultants – who always have a 50-50 chance of winding up on the winning side – is routinely exaggerated by political reporters and insiders.

Consultants are rarely better than the candidates they serve and, let’s face it, Axelrod is likely to find in Ed Miliband a somewhat less charismatic commodity than Barack Obama.

But Axelrod does have something Miliband needs, and it’s not a passion for grappling with inequality, as some media reports have said. The Chicago-based Axelrod is a man of middle America, not a creature of Washington. He has an intuitive grasp of the pragmatic nature of US voters, especially those without strong partisan attachments.

In short, where Messina is a whizz at energising true believers, Axelrod knows how to talk to swing voters.

What those voters want is a plan for reviving economic dynamism and opportunity, not a “populist” narrative that casts them as helpless victims of an all-powerful plutocracy. Their answer to inequality is not to pull down the mighty, but to create more jobs with decent pay, get wages growing again along with productivity, and rebuild middle class prosperity.

In America at least, this difference between a politics centred on economic aspiration and one centred on class grievance is crucial. Like Bill Clinton before them, Obama and Axelrod fashioned successful presidential campaigns by stressing the former.

Axelrod deftly read the public mood in 2008. There was a powerful revulsion to politics as usual in Washington. Axelrod presented Obama as the ultimate outsider, turning his relative lack of political experience into a key selling point. This experience may prove useful for Milliband and Labour, who likewise must craft a powerful argument for political change even as the UK economy improves.

In any event, Axelrod’s feel for the kind of ideas that move persuadable voters will likely prove an asset.

This article was originally published by the London Times here.

Bringing U.S. Energy Policy Into the 21st Century

Posted on April 1, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

U.S. lawmakers don’t drive around in 1970s-era cars, yet they don’t seem to mind energy policies that are equally out of date. Attempts to export shale oil and gas, for example, have run smack into legal and regulatory barriers as old as a Gran Torino.

Energy companies have been urging Congress to lift the lid on exports and start treating oil and gas again like any other commodity that’s freely traded in world markets. Tapping global demand for U.S. shale oil and gas, they say, will spur domestic production and create even more jobs in a sector that’s already racked up robust employment gains.

Russia’s naked power play in wresting Crimea from Ukraine has given fresh impetus to the export push.

From outraged Republicans to eastern Europeans living anxiously in Moscow’s shadow come calls to use America’s shale windfall to wean Europe off dependence on Russian gas, oil and coal.

The idea that surging U.S. gas and oil production is a new source of geopolitical power is a seductive one, though there are practical difficulties inherent in using energy as an instrument of foreign policy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not as scary as the Soviet Union, but it remains an energy superpower. Moscow supplies Europe on average with roughly a third of its energy; many Baltic and central European countries rely almost completely on Russian gas, oil and coal. Some observers think such realities have muted Europe’s reaction to Putin’s aggression.

Taking market share from Moscow would diminish its political leverage, while also weakening its petro-centric economy. Energy accounts for as much as a quarter of Russia’s GDP, 60 percent of its exports, and the lion’s share of its revenues. The problem, of course, is that Washington doesn’t export oil and gas, companies do. They go where the profits are, not where geopolitics dictates.

In any event, U.S. gas and oil exports are stalled by old laws and rules as well as potent domestic opposition. For example, the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act bars most exports of U.S. crude oil. Exporting natural gas isn’t illegal, but it requires getting the U.S. Department of Energy’s approval to build terminals for liquefying the gas so it can be shipped overseas. Amid industry complaints that the Department of Energy is slow-walking approvals, Congress recently held hearings on ways to expedite LNG export licenses.

America’s import-oriented energy policies are a legacy of the 1970s energy crises. They are predicated on an assumption of fossil fuel scarcity and U.S. vulnerability to volatile global oil markets. Today’s reality is abundance, thanks to horizontal drilling techniques and shale fracturing, aka, “fracking.” Next year, the United States is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer.

The energy world has been turned on its head, but U.S. policies haven’t changed. Powerful interests are invested in preserving the status quo. Chemical companies, which use natural gas as a feed stock, say ramping up exports would raise domestic gas prices and thereby threaten a revival in U.S. manufacturing. Some analysts say we’d be better off using more natural gas in the transportation sector, for cars as well as heavy-duty trucks, because this would cut both carbon emissions and oil imports.

The fiercest opposition to exporting oil and gas comes from environmental activists. In an open letter (PDF) to President Obama, a coalition of environmental groups led by anti-XL Pipeline crusader Bill McKibben, slammed the administration’s plans for building LNG terminals along U.S. coastlines. “We believe that the implementation of a massive LNG export plan would lock in place infrastructure and economic dynamics that will make it almost impossible for the world to avoid catastrophic climate change,” the letter asserts. Most of the nation’s fossil fuel reserves, it adds, should stay “in the ground.”

It’s highly unlikely, though, that the public will support attempts to stuff the shale genie back in its bottle. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, jobs in the oil and natural gas industry grew by 32 percent between 2007 and 2012, even as overall employment fell 11.4 percent. The glut of cheap gas is also a boon to energy-intensive industries in the United States, which are beginning to attract significant investment from Europe, where energy costs are much higher.

Moreover, it’s not a foregone conclusion that taking advantage of America’s shale bonanza will bring on an environmental catastrophe. On the contrary, fuel switching in the electricity sector from coal to natural gas already has brought a 10 percent decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. If gas catches on as a transport fuel, that also would yield lower emissions. In any event, fossil fuels will continue to be a major part of America’s fuel mix for decades to come, green fantasies notwithstanding, and lawmakers must manage the nation’s energy portfolio — including zero-carbon-emitting nuclear energy—in a way that both spurs economic growth and reduces the risks of global warming.

In truth, no one really knows what will happen if America once again becomes a major energy exporter. We can’t say for sure whether domestic prices will spike, or how global markets would react to an influx of U.S. oil, or what the net effect on global carbon emissions would be. Nor is it certain that exports by energy companies would buttress U.S. diplomacy. The sensible course is to experiment—to lift restrictions on oil and gas exports at a measured pace, measure economic and environmental impacts, and make adjustments as we go. That should be part of a political bargain in which Democrats agree to ease export controls in return for GOP support for more public investment in research and development of renewable fuels and clean technology.

What makes no sense is to let the dead hand of 40-year-old energy policies constrain America’s freedom of action today. As the shale revolution approaches its 10th anniversary, it’s time to bring U.S. energy policy into the 21st century.

This piece was originally published at the Daily Beast.

Where Government is Working

Posted on March 26, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the federal government in gridlock, cities step into the breach.

Welcome to New Orleans, city of the future.

Wait, New Orleans? The decadent old tourist trap that’s been trading on its fading cultural glories for decades? That’s right – the Crescent City has its mojo working again.

Since the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, the Big Easy has reinvented itself as a mecca for entrepreneurship and a magnet for young and highly educated workers. Forbes ranked New Orleans number one in IT job growth. Another ranking of America’s “cities of aspiration,” which blends economic performance, quality of life measures and demographics, lists New Orleans second behind Austin, Texas. New Orleans is also leading the transformation of urban education. An amazing 79 percent of its students attend charter schools, and — more amazing still — they are on track to become the first inner city students in the nation to outperform their counterparts in the rest of the state.

New Orleans also benefits from dynamic political leadership and a cooperative civic culture. Mayor Mitch Landrieu is a tough-minded progressive who has cut the city’s budget by a quarter, spun off inefficient public health clinics and forced the city’s regulators to dramatically speed up licensing and permitting. Voicing a pragmatism that’s all too rare in the ideological hothouse of Washington, Landrieu notes that “government can be too big and too small at the same time.” He has also launched the New Orleans Business Alliance, the city’s first public-private partnership for economic development, and has used the money freed by his “cut and invest” approach to upgrade municipal infrastructure and improve public safety (an astronomical murder rate is the city’s biggest problem).

What’s happening in New Orleans, however, is hardly unique. It’s emblematic of a larger story: A renaissance in local governance as Washington sinks deeper into paralysis.

While Congress becomes both more ideologically polarized and less productive than ever, local governments are innovating, collaborating and equipping their citizens and communities with tools for successful problem-solving.

This “metropolitan revolution”, as Bruce Katz and Jenifer Bradley of the Brookings Institution have dubbed it, illustrates the genius of American federalism. Its subtle dynamics seem to ensure that not every level of our government can be broken at the same time.

It’s also a dramatic role reversal from a couple decades ago, when the nation’s big cities were synonymous with failure and decline. From New York to Detroit, Cleveland to Los Angeles, U.S. urban centers were beset by deindustrialization and toxic waste, rising poverty, soaring crime rates, municipal corruption, racial friction and middle class flight to the suburbs.

Overwhelmed by these economic and social maladies, many urban leaders took refuge in victimhood and looked to Washington for salvation. As I’ve noted elsewhere, many cities seemed to develop a cargo cult mentality, waiting like Pacific islanders during World War II for pallets of federal aid to drop miraculously from the sky – which never came.

What came instead was a new wave of reform-minded mayors preaching self-reliance and homegrown solutions to local problems. These included pragmatic progressives like John Norquist in Milwaukee, Ed Rendell in Philadephia, Cory Booker in Newark and Martin O’Malley in Baltimore, as well as moderate Republicans Rudy Guiliani and Michael Bloomberg in New York. They used innovations like data-driven analysis and community policing to drive crime rates down. They experimented with ways to reduce welfare dependency and demolished public housing complexes that concentrated and isolated the poor. A few brave souls took over abysmal inner city school systems, cutting swollen bureaucracies, launching innovative charter schools, and holding principals and teachers accountable for student performance.

Metros on Top

Today, America’s cities and metro regions are the star performers of our federal system. They are America’s main hubs of economic innovation and dynamism and are reviving the U.S. economy from the ground up.

Houston, for example, as Derek Thompson of The Atlantic notes, has added more than two jobs for every one it lost in the Great Recession. Katz and Bradley report that cities like Portland and Tampa are concentrating on boosting exports into global markets. In Northeast Ohio, Cleveland and other cities are collaborating on joint strategies to become a hub of advanced manufacturing, targeting 3-D printing in particular. After the recession/financial crisis, Bloomberg launched an imaginative competition to attract engineering and applied science campuses to New York, to lessen the city’s economic dependence on Wall Street.

To Katz and Bradley, it all adds up to “an inversion of the hierarchy of power in the United States.”

The urbanologist Alan Ehrenhalt sees another kind of inversion at work in America’s metropolitan regions. As he explained in an interview with Smartplanet.com:

The demographic inversion simply means that, contrary to where we were a generation ago, with the inner city meaning “the place where poor people live” and the exurbs being where the affluent flee to; in the future, the center of the city is going to be where affluent people choose life. Not necessarily by tens of millions, but in significant numbers. Suburbs are going to be the place where immigrants and the poor congregate.

What’s behind this change? The disappearance of heavy manufacturing from many cities, says Ehrenhalt, has made them more attractive places to live. So has the steady decline in crime rates over the past several decades. And millennials in particular seem to find urban life more exciting than the placid suburbs most of them grew up in.

O Come Emanuel

If there’s a poster child for the metro revolution it’s probably Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. A former adviser to President Clinton and Member of Congress, the acerbic Emanuel left his job as President Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor after longtime Mayor Richard Daley decided to call it quits. “Washington is dysfunctional politically, and it’s not just a momentary thing,” he explained to the New York Times’ Tom Friedman.

We’ve always said that there’d be a day when all that the federal government does is debt service, entitlement payments and defense. Well, folks, that day is here. So, federal support for after-school programs has shrunk. We added to ours, but I had to figure out where to get the money. The federal government is debating what to do with community colleges. We’ve already converted ours to focus on skills development and career-based education. I worked for two great presidents, but this is the best job I’ve had in public service.

None of this means Washington is at risk of becoming irrelevant – sorry, conservatives. But it does argue the merits of a serious push for a systematic decentralization of decisions and resources to state and local governments. It’s time to revisit former Congressional Budget Office chief Alice Rivlin’s ideas for devolving large responsibilities from Washington. And even during the present political stalemate, there are things Congress and the White House can do to enable local leaders to succeed. One is a generous waiver policy to allow for greater state and local experimentation. Combining lots of small programs – the federal government has 82 for teacher training alone – into broad, performance-based grants would also promote both local flexibility and efficiency.

Most important, progressives should get out of the habit of treating Washington as the line of first resort when some urgent problem demands a governmental response. Congress, the National Journal reports, is more ideologically polarized than ever. Not coincidentally, the previous Congress was the least productive in modern times. The current one – already effectively closed for serious business until November’s midterm elections — could turn out to be even more barren of legislative achievement.

And since no one seems to know how to throw the engines of polarization and hyper-partisanship into reverse, Washington is likely to remain mired in impotence and inertia for quite a while.

But don’t give up on democracy in America just yet. As conservatives try to undermine public confidence in government yet further, progressives should look outside Washington to local governments that are proving to be effective instruments for advancing the common good.

The piece is cross-posted from Republic 3.0.

Politico Magazine: Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy Is a Mess

Posted on March 21, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

If the Crimea crisis has revealed flaws in President Barack Obama’s passive “realism,” it has also exposed the utter incoherence of Rand Paul’s foreign policy—which, despite a reputation for being principled and bold, is in fact all over the place.

If that sounds too harsh, try making sense of the Kentucky senator’s contorted response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Paul, the latest favorite for the GOP’s 2016 presidential candidate, came out blasting in a recent Time op-ed, declaring that Russian President Vladimir Putin “must be punished” for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and asserting that Obama isn’t up to the job. “If I were president, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it,” Paul huffed.

Such gasconade seemed out of character for the anti-war libertarian. He opposes U.S. intervention just about everywhere—whether in Syria, which he sees as an invitation to another Iraq-style quagmire, or Iran, where he rejects preemptive U.S. strikes in favor of diplomacy or, failing that, a containment policy. Sure enough, the day after his Time article appeared, Paul was back to his usual dovish tone. In a Brietbart op-ed, he prescribed the “strategic use of soft power” to counter Putin and accused unnamed politicians—clearly his GOP presidential rivals—of beating their chests: “What we don’t need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.” Those who invoke Ronald Reagan to justify their bellicosity, he added, should remember that some similarly overzealous hawks called the Gipper an appeaser for negotiating nuclear arms accords with Soviet leaders.

Confused?

Let’s step back to January 2011, when the ophthalmologist-turned-politician Paul rode the high tide of Tea Party insurgency into the U.S. Senate. Despite having zero international experience, he was nothing if not clear and consistent on foreign policy. Like his father and libertarian icon, the now-retired Texas congressman Ron Paul, Rand called for America to mind its own business instead of trying to solve other countries’ problems. He regularly excoriated GOP neoconservatives for having pushed the nation into protracted and costly wars during the Bush administration, and made no secret of his desire to get America out of the superpower business.

Continue reading at Politico Magazine.

A Brief History of Internet Regulation

Posted on March 13, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposals to regulate the Internet are often presented as “new” solutions to deal with modern problems, but the most significant of these proposals, such as “network neutrality” and common carrier rules on unbundling and interconnection, are actually vestiges of long-outmoded ways of thinking about telecommunications policy. This paper explores the relevant regulatory history, offering critical context to today’s Internet policy debates.

From the early days of the AT&T monopoly well into the 1990s, regulators, the courts and the Congress engaged in a lengthy effort to protect consumers and ultimately bring competition into the markets for local and long-distance telephone service. This included strict “common carrier” utility regulations and mandatory interconnection requirements and ultimately the 1984 Modified Final Judgment, which forced the breakup of AT&T into regional Baby Bells. From the beginning of “community antenna TV” through the 1990s, a parallel but more limited effort was made to regulate the nascent cable industry. While these regulations had some success, technological change quickly outstripped them—both in the telephone business and the emerging field of high-speed data—and a bipartisan consensus formed in the early 1990s that additional steps were needed to promote competition in all these arenas.

The result was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, watershed legislation that marked the end of the telephone age and the beginning of the Internet age from a policy perspective. The Act embraced and codified the FCC’s distinction between traditional telephony/telecommunications services and the emerging world of information services, with strict common carrier rules limited to the former. On the telephone side, this meant a stifling regime of mandatory “unbundling” and rigid price controls, while giving the private sector more latitude to innovate and invest on the “information services” side. The 1996 Act may not have specifically contemplated the rise of the broadband Internet (the idea of an “information superhighway” was in the air, but the exact form it would take was still unclear as a matter of both technology and policy), but by protecting information services from the common carrier framework, the Act set the stage for the dynamic growth we have seen in American broadband.

The result was a boom in cable broadband investment that telecommunications providers attempted to counter by offering DSL services. But any new DSL capability they constructed had to be leased out to competitors at below market prices under the unbundling regime, which limited their efforts. When fiber and DSL were relieved of their unbundling obligation in the early 2000s, however, capital poured in and these services flourished as fixed-broadband competitors to cable. In fact, that competition drew a competitive response from cable, in turn leading to a virtuous cycle of improvement and enhancement resulting in the United States ascending to the upper reaches of the International broadband rankings.

This background sheds important light on current calls to impose “new” regulations on broadband either through “network neutrality” rules or by reclassifying it as a “telecommunications service” subject to common carrier obligations. While advocates suggest otherwise, these proposals are clearly not new, but would represent a return to the dated—and in the view of this paper failed—approach that the bipartisan 1996 Act was designed to sweep away. Most of these proposals for network micromanagement, forced sharing of investments, and government influence on pricing have been associated with low investment and innovation. These rules may have made sense when the problem was how to protect consumers in the days of the sanctioned Ma Bell monopoly, but the business and consumer landscape is dramatically different today in almost every regard.

Ultimately, three key lessons emerge from this policy review. First, information services and telecommunications services really are different, and broadband has flourished as an information service free from ill-fitting and stifling common carrier constraints. Second, investment and capital flow to where regulation (or the absence thereof) encourages them to flow. And third, technology, business models, and consumer behaviors change and, as they change, the meaning and effect of different regulatory proposals change as well.

Download the entire report.

Sens. Johnson, Crapo On The Right Track to Housing Reform

Posted on March 12, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The housing sector is one of the pillars of the U.S. economy. That’s why we have marveled at the many partisan and radical proposals to reform the federal housing finance system that would have trashed both what’s good and what’s bad with the current system. PPI continues to maintain that any reform proposal must stabilize U.S. housing markets, reduce the government’s over-sized footprint in housing finance and protect taxpayers from a repeat of the housing bailout.

While the full details aren’t yet available, a bipartisan proposal from Senators Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota) and John Crapo (R-Idaho) seems to move the housing debate out of the ideological realm and closer to reality. Their blueprint ensures the continued availability to homebuyers of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages, and proposes creation of a fee-based insurance fund, similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance, to shield taxpayers from having to bailout the housing finance sector in the future.

There are still many details in question, but we think Senators Johnson and Crapo have pointed the housing debate in a more promising direction.

Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth: Surveying New Post-Crisis Evidence

Posted on March 11, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Does an increase in government spending create or destroy private sector jobs? Or more particularly, does additional spending on infrastructure—fixing existing roads and bridges, or building new ones—generate positive spillover effects for the rest of the economy? This question featured prominently in the 2009 debate over the size of the fiscal stimulus package. The Obama Administration, led by Christina Romer of the Council of Economic Advisors, wrote in January 2009, “we expect the proposed recovery plan to have significant effects on the aggregate number of jobs created, relative to the no-stimulus baseline.”

In response, conservative economists and politicians argued that rather than creating new jobs, government spending on infrastructure would crowd out private sector hiring. Over 200 conservative economists expressed stimulus skepticism, with a Cato Institute statement proclaiming “we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.”The net result: The Obama administration ended up getting less to spend on infrastructure than it would have and should have.

What’s more, the debate over the size of the spillover effect—also known as “multipliers”—left lasting scars and hardened battle lines. Since then, proponents of higher infrastructure spending, including business stalwarts such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have faced intense skepticism about the economic benefits of improving our transportation infrastructure. For example, the Department of Transportation funding programs were reauthorized in 2012 only after three years of temporary stop-gap extensions, with funding levels essentially unchanged from the previous authorization in 2005.

In this paper, we try to go beyond the sterile back and forth to uncover the real story about the economic spillovers from infrastructure spending. In particular, we look at a series of new studies that have been done since the 2009 policy arguments, using a wide variety of data sources and analytical techniques.

Download the full brief, including a breakdown of the returns on different types of investments, here.

Cuomo schools De Blasio

Posted on March 10, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

“We will save charter schools,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) assured thousands of students and their families at a recent rally in Albany. Save them from whom, you wonder? From another Democrat, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The rift between these bull elephants of New York politics isn’t personal. Rather, it illuminates simmering tensions between the Democratic Party’s reform and “populist” camps.

De Blasio thrilled the latter by campaigning last year against the Big Apple’s growing inequality, and vowing to tax the rich to pay for pre-school for low-income kids. Many on the Democratic left see him as just what they’ve been waiting for — an unapologetic champion for a new politics of economic and racial justice.
When it comes to charter schools, however, de Blasio sounds more like the paleoliberals of the 1970s and 1980s, whose distaste for reforming broken public sector systems — urban schools, welfare, public housing – did much to discredit Democrats in the voters’ eyes.

The flap began last week when the de Blasio administration withdrew permission (granted by its predecessor, Michael Bloomberg) for three charter schools to share space with schools run by the school district. The target of this eviction notice is Success Academy, a nonprofit network of charter schools, all of which are co-located with district schools. It’s run by Eva Moskowitz, a sharp-elbowed former city councilwoman who has opened 22 schools in mostly poor neighborhoods over fierce resistance from the city’s education establishment and its political allies.

De Blasio objects to co-location because he sees charters as free riders on the traditional school system. During the campaign, he said Moscowitz’s schools must “stop being tolerated, enabled, supported” by the city’s Education Department. And it’s not just space; the mayor also has shifted $210 million from a charter school expansion fund he inherited to other purposes.

De Blasio’s visceral aversion to the city’s charters is strange on several levels. First, it ignores the fact that, far from being invasive parasites on the district schools, charters are public schools too, even if they aren’t controlled by the central bureaucracy. They must take all comers (space permitting) and they receive significantly less in public money per each student ($13,527) than the district schools ($19,000). The mayor apparently believes that because charters solicit funds from private foundations and philanthropists, they aren’t truly public schools, and they are rolling in dough. Most aren’t, but in any case what’s so terrible about using private donations to improve urban schools?

Second, whereas the city provides buildings to all of its traditional schools, charters must find and pay rent on their own space. The facilities challenge, in fact, has been a major constraint on charter growth nationally. Take Washington, D.C., where nearly half the students are enrolled in charters. As a D.C. charter school authorizer, I was struck by how much time and energy school leaders spend on trying to find suitable and affordable space — even though the city is awash with vacant school buildings.

Third and most important, many charters are giving impoverished minority students what they’ve been denied too long — a quality education. Success Academy Harlem, one of the charters de Blasio wants to expel, had the highest-performing 5th graders in New York’s state math assessment last year. At the district school it shares space with, only five percent of the students passed the test.

So why do self-proclaimed “progressives” want to punish schools that are doing a good job of educating disadvantaged kids? The conventional answer is that they are carrying water for the adults in the traditional system — especially teachers unions. That’s often true, but there’s another explanation: Populists have a genuine ideological bone to pick with charters, because they inject market concepts of choice and competition into public education.

Progressive education reformers are more pragmatic. What matters to them is closing achievement gaps, not preserving the centralized, one-size-fits all model for school governance. For them, the “public” nature of public education lies not in a uniform school system, but in a commitment to uniformly high standards for all students. What charters offer, reformers say, is room for innovation and diversity within public education. Above all, they offer accountability for results. When charters don’t succeed, they can and should have their charters yanked. De Blasio, on the other hand, wants a moratorium on closing failing district schools.

The progressive reform camp, fortunately, has some formidable assets: Bill Clinton, who first put charters on the national agenda two decades ago; President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan; lots of Democratic mayors, governors and legislators in the 42 states that have charter schools; and, legions of black and Hispanic parents who are demanding better schools for this kids.

Oh yes, and Andrew Cuomo, who vowed to make sure the city’s charters have “the financial capacity and physical space and government support to thrive and grow.” Thus did the governor school the new mayor in what it really means to be a progressive.

This article originally appeared in The Hill, you can read it on their website here.

Putin Is a Threat to the Free World America Helped Build

Posted on March 4, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

In occupying Crimea, Vladimir Putin has brought the Russian bear, snarling and clawing, out of its post-Cold War hibernation. An anxious world awaits America’s response.

President Obama’s challenge is three-fold. The first and most urgent task is to discourage Putin from authorizing deeper incursions into Ukrainian territory on the pretext of protecting their Russian-speaking compatriots from “fascists.” That could be the thread that unravels Ukraine‘s independence.

Sending Secretary of State John Kerry to Kiev this week is a welcome gesture of U.S. solidarity, but in truth there is little Washington can do to stop Putin from grabbing a larger chunk of the country. No one is prepared to go to war over Ukraine, and the Russian strongman knows it. Nonetheless, Obama should spell out an escalating chain of penalties Russia will incur for further aggression.

Second, Washington must orchestrate a global chorus of condemnation of Russia’s blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, reinforced by sustained diplomatic and economic pressure on Putin to withdraw his troops. The third task is to solicit economic aid to help stabilize Ukraine’s fragile new government and lessen its dependence on Russia.

Pundits are calling the crisis the gravest test to date of Obama’s international leadership. Perhaps, but there’s a larger question: Can the divided U.S. government, which can scarcely pass a budget or fill key posts, muster a coherent and forceful reply to Putin’s attempts to bully Russia’s neighbors into submission?

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but some Republicans just can’t help themselves. Russia’s aggression, they charge, is the bitter fruit of Obama’s weakness. Never mind that Putin also invaded neighboring Georgia in 2008 on George W. Bush’s watch.

Evidently, the “blame America first” mentality that Republicans used to attribute to Democrats has migrated from the left to the right of the political spectrum.

Occupying Crimea is part of Putin’s grand strategy to restore a strong Russia that’s once again respected — i.e., feared — and halts the advance of Western-style democracy into what Moscow regards as its historic sphere of influence. This complicates Putin’s plan to organize a “Eurasian Union” of compliant autocracies as a counterweight to the European Union.

The Russian leader and former KGB operative has called the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union a tragedy. But that doesn’t mean he has grandiose visions of recreating Stalin’s old empire. Instead, the wily Putin is trying to revise, not reverse, the Cold War settlement. That’s why he’s focusing on countries on Russia’s borders with large ethnic or Russian-speaking populations. Putin would like to reabsorb as many of them as possible, which is why he doesn’t want these countries to follow the Baltics and Eastern Europe in turning to the West. In championing supposedly endangered Russian minorities, and reestablishing the Russian Orthodox Church as the state religion, Putin is trying to revive the old Russian nationalism of the Tsars.

Unfortunately, he also seems bent on resurrecting the worst features of that tradition — creeping imperial expansion, stifling autocracy, paranoia about being “encircled” by enemies and resentful envy of the modern West, led nowadays by America.

This backsliding from the hopeful days of post-Soviet Russia, when Boris Yeltsin tried to put his country on a “normal” course toward market democracy, is a tragedy for Russians, not just their fearful neighbors. Fabricating conflicts with newly independent neighbors and whipping up anti-Americanism strikes a revanchist chord, especially among older Russians. Moreover, such antics distract the world’s eye from popular protests in Russia, as well as harsh crackdowns on dissent and civil society, and the ruthless stamping out of real political competition.

President Obama hasn’t paid nearly enough attention to the rising authoritarian tide in Russia. Instead, in classic “realpolitik” fashion, the White House keeps emphasizing the need to win Russia’s cooperation on what it regards as more important issues, like reaching a political resolution of Syria‘s civil war (though Moscow has no interest in Assad’s departure) and striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

More fundamentally, Obama appears to have internalized the critique — which now joins the anti-war left to the libertarian right — that America’s problems abroad stem mainly from our own moralizing and overreaching, not what bad actors elsewhere do. That’s why he has demoted freedom and democracy as U.S. foreign policy goals, and stood aloof from the Syrian bloodbath, even as the human and strategic costs of inaction keep mounting.

Let’s hope the Ukraine crisis jolts the president out of his solipsistic complacency. Russia’s resort to brute force to intimidate its neighbors is a threat to the international system shaped and sustained mainly by American power over the last half-century. Are we really too war-weary, overstretched or poor to rise to this new challenge? Not unless our leaders think we are.

This op-ed was originally posted in Real Clear World, you can read the original article on their website here.

How Season 2 of House of Cards Murders the 25th Amendment

Posted on February 28, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As the nation binges on Season 2 of “House of Cards,” we have witnessed ruthless House Majority Whip Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) maneuver for the vice president to resign and for himself to be appointed to the position. It’s no spoiler to say that Underwood clearly won’t be content to remain a heartbeat away from the presidency.

But the biggest casualty of “House of Cards” might well turn out to be the 25th Amendment, which governs vice presidential succession. Once again, the amendment has, at least in popular fiction, been transformed from a pragmatic constitutional provision into a Machiavellian route to power. And that’s a shame, because in a real-world time of crisis it could be incredibly valuable — but only if an ongoing stream of fictional portrayals hasn’t distorted its public image beyond recognition.

The 25th Amendment was enacted in 1967 during the height of the Cold War, at time of hair-trigger tensions and the ever-present reality of nuclear missiles mounted on fast-flying intercontinental ballistic missiles. The need for near-instantaneous decision making and continuity of the command authority during the Cold War was clear, yet the nation had twice found itself with a vacancy in the vice presidency, for nearly 4 years after Truman succeeded to the top job 1945 and again for over a year after the Kennedy assassination.

This problem was rooted in an oversight of the founders. They had crafted a vice presidency to assume executive authority in the case of the death, resignation, or removal of a president, but had not provided a way to fill the ensuing vice presidential vacancy before the next regularly scheduled general election. As a result, between 1789 and 1967, through a combination of presidential and vice presidential deaths and resignations, the VP slot had been vacant 16 times for some 40 years in total, or nearly 20 percent of American history.

Depending upon the Law of Presidential Succession at the time, the secretary of state or the speaker of the House were bumped up to next in line to the Oval Office. But the former lacked democratic validation, while the latter was not part of the sitting administration, and might even be its vehement political enemy. The 25th Amendment was thus enacted to enable the president to fill a vacancy in the vice president position, subject only to confirmation by simple majorities of both houses of Congress.

On “House of Cards,” Underwood’s machinations have arranged for the unhappy sitting Vice President to step down and for him to be named in his stead, with various types of murder and mayhem enacted along the way. This is a far cry, however, from how the mild-mannered and upstanding Gerald Ford actually found his way to the Oval Office via the 25th Amendment in 1974.

After VP Spiro Agnew was pressured to resign due to bribery charges, Nixon looked around for a harmless placeholder until the 1976 election. Neither he nor Ford, imagined that Nixon would himself likewise be forced from office, following what Ford termed the “long national nightmare” of the Watergate crisis. A longtime member of the House, Ford had never been elected by any constituency larger than the area around Grand Rapids, Michigan, yet he assumed full executive authority, more in sadness than in triumph. Now though, thanks to “House of Cards,” what was then a constitutional lifeline is now best known as a vaguely illegitimate back route to power.

And “House of Cards” is not the only fictional outlet to rough up the 25th Amendment, which includes two other provisions addressing another oversight of the founders: what to do about a president who was not dead but was severely incapacitated. Section 3 of the amendment allows for the president to designate the VP to temporarily become acting president. This can be initiated by a still-conscious president, as has been done three times by presidents who were anesthetized for brief medical procedures. Its intention was for such short-term situations or, even more so, for protracted periods such as following Woodrow Wilson’s stroke in 1919 or Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack in 1955.

Predictably, though, television took this sober precaution to an outlandish level on the long-running series “The West Wing,” in which the daughter of Democratic President Jed Bartlet (Martin Sheen) was at one point kidnapped by terrorists. This created an insoluble conflict-of-interest for the president, leading him to invoke Section 3 of the 25th Amendment and to temporarily to step aside. Conveniently, the vice president on the series had also recently resigned. This enabled the next in line, a boorish Republican speaker of the House (John Goodman), to briefly become commander-in-chief and thus to play havoc with the administration’s policies.

Most controversially, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment enables vice presidents themselves to initiate the power transfer, provided that they have the counter-signatures of a majority of cabinet officials. The single time this provision unambiguously should have been enacted was in 1981 after an assassination attempt left Ronald Reagan unconscious. But a mere three months into their term, Vice President George H.W. Bush was determined to create even a hint of an unseemly power grab, and never invoked the amendment despite Reagan’s manifest incapacitation. One of the indelible images of that day was mass confusion at the White House and the infamous, and erroneous, declaration by Secretary of State Alexander Haig that he was in charge while Bush was traveling back to DC.

Of course, popular culture has likewise since latched onto this scenario, most famously in the Hollywood movie “Air Force One,” in which the president’s plane has been hijacked with him aboard. Although this was hardly the circumstances originally envisioned for the amendment, it undoubtedly applied — the president (Harrison Ford) could hardly have been more incapacitated than while evading terrorists at 35,000 feet. But the vice president (Glenn Close) stalwartly refuses to make the correct choice to temporarily transfer power to herself, despite urging from a cabinet more sensible than herself.

So, what do these fictional scenarios have in common with reality? Not very much. But they do play to an enduring fascination with convoluted Shakespearean scheming to seize the throne, such as in “Macbeth” and “Richard III.” Hopefully, the 25th Amendment will never need to be invoked in such dramatic circumstances. But, the reality is that it conceivablycould be — and in a moment of crisis and confusion, the perception of order and legitimacy may count for a lot. It certainly won’t help if the public’s most enduring impression of the mechanism for orderly succession involves the scheming of Frank Underwood.

This piece was originally published in The Daily Beast, you can read it on their website here.

KUOW: Is The Tea Party Over?

Posted on February 19, 2014 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Raymond Smith, PPI senior fellow, was interviewed by Ross Reynolds of KUOW-Seattle on the Tea Party’s waning influence.

Smith made it clear that the Tea Party was declining, but not gone yet. He explained that in the long run, the Tea Party wasn’t a sustainable party in the U.S. two-party system, like many others fringe parties. It is more like a political movement, an anti-system party without any chance to take power:

In a two-party system, either it gets control of one of the two major parties, or it burns itself out.”

Listen to the entire KUOW-FM interview here.

Protecting the Environment for Innovation: A Regulatory Improvement Commission

Posted on February 13, 2014September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A Regulatory Improvement Commission would solve the issue of regulatory accumulation, the layering on year after year, of new rules atop old ones. The fundamental problem is not that government keeps creating new rules, but that it never rescinds old ones. As a result, U.S. businesses and entrepreneurs are enmeshed in an ever-growing web of complex rules that are sometimes duplicative, sometimes in conflict with each other, and sometimes obsolete. Like barnacles on a ship’s hull, the sheer number and weight of regulations imposes a drag on economic growth. Regulatory accumulation also raises the costs of entry to entrepreneurs, and creates big opportunity costs as the time and attention of business managers is consumed by compliance with rules rather than creating new products or better business processes.

This problem demands an institutional response. It is unrealistic to expect the same agencies that promulgated rules to eliminate or modify them. Some new entity must be created and charged exclusively with pruning old rules that inhibit innovation and entrepreneurship. PPI has proposed creation of a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to fill this vacuum. It is modeled on the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), which Congress created in 1990 to create a politically feasible way to reduce excess military infrastructure.

The RIC would consult experts, business and the public to draw up a list of regulations that should be eliminated or improved, and present it to Congress for an up or down vote. As a small body that convenes occasionally, and relies largely on staff loaned to it by Congressional and Executive Branch offices, its costs would be negligible. The savings — both in terms of retiring costly rules and reducing the drag of regulatory accumulation of economic growth and entrepreneurship — could be enormous.

Like BRAC, the RIC would provide political cover to Members of Congress, who otherwise would have to vote individually on rules often defended by entrenched and politically powerful interests. The process of “getting it done” has already begun: Sens. Angus King and Roy Blount last year introduced bipartisan legislation in the Senate to establish the RIC.

The above remarks were prepared for delivery at the Kauffman Foundation’s 2014 State of Entrepreneurship event on February 12.

For recent PPI work on regulatory reform, see our latest policy memo and op-ed.