issue: Transportation & Infrastructure

Next-Gen Reactors: How Nuclear Innovation Can Support Growth and a Healthy Climate

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The U.S. Supreme Court has put President Obama’s Clean Power Plan on hold while lower courts review challenges to the regulation. The ruling is a setback to Obama’s hopes of bypassing a hostile Republican majority in Congress and using his executive authority to require electric utilities to make big reductions in carbon emissions.

At last year’s Paris climate summit, the administration pledged to make deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. With the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in limbo, Washington has no plausible mechanism for getting anywhere near those goals.

In truth, however, the United States would fall well short of those goals even if the CPP survives legal challenges. For one thing, the rule covers the power sector, which accounts for only about 31 percent of U.S. emissions. What’s more, the United States will have to put carbon reductions into overdrive, roughly doubling their current pace, to meet the administration’s ambitious commitments in Paris.

Rather than put all of its climate protection eggs in the CPP basket, the White House clearly needs a broader strategy for making sure that America can do its part to slow down global warming. A key component of such a strategy must be expanding America’s biggest source of zero-carbon energy: nuclear power.

Download “2016.05-Freeman-Marshall_Next-Gen-Reactors_How-Nuclear-Innovation-Can-Support-Growth-and-a-Healthy-Climate”

*Note: A previous version omitted a citation to Dr. Ashley Finan’s testimony. We regret this error.

CNN: America needs more than populist message

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With Donald Trump and Ted Cruz locked in a bitter battle for the Republican nomination, the stakes in 2016 rise dramatically. The likely victory of either one of these deeply flawed candidates will give Democrats a chance not only to hold the White House, but also to realign U.S. politics. No wonder Republicans are panicking.

To seize the opportunity, however, Hillary Clinton will need to transcend the limits of a “populist” message based on identity politics, economic victimhood and redistribution. Thus far such themes have dominated the nomination battle with Sen. Bernie Sanders, but they won’t help Democrats forge a broader political coalition that includes suburban moderates, college-educated independents and many Republicans who are aghast at the prospect of branding the White House with a giant “T.”
Of course, with yet another caucus victory on Saturday, this time in Wyoming, Sanders will stay in the race, if only to keep tugging Clinton to the left. But Clinton needs to resist this ideological gravity, because Sanders’ left-wing populism is not an effective answer to the right-wing populism that Trump channels with such diabolic cunning.
Before the Bernie Bots clank into action, let me hasten to say I’m not positing moral equivalence between Sanders and Trump. Sanders is honest, principled and decent; Trump is, well, none of those things. But the lifelong socialist’s dream of turning America into a paternalistic, European-style welfare state isn’t the right prescription for what ails our country.
Continue reading at CNN.

Press Release: PPI Unveils New Blueprint for Shared Prosperity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2016

Contact: Cody Tucker, 202-775-0106
or ctucker@ppionline.org

A Progressive Alternative to Populism

PPI Unveils New Blueprint for Shared Prosperity

WASHINGTON—The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism, a new blueprint for renewing America’s economic dynamism.

The plan offers an array of creative proposals for accelerating the “digitization” of the physical economy; lowering regulatory obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship; launching a new public works push; adopting pro-growth tax reform; grooming the world’s most talented workers; and enabling working families to escape poverty and build middle class wealth.

The blueprint also takes aim at the populist anger that has figured prominently in campaign 2016:

…[P]opulists do Americans no favors by claiming the economic game is hopelessly rigged against them, that the leaders they elect are incompetents, or that our democracy is rancid with corruption. None of these claims is true, and such demagoguery undermines public confidence in America’s boundless capacity for self-renewal. Populist anger fosters an ‘us versus them’ mentality that, by reinforcing political tribalism and social mistrust, can only make it harder to build consensus around economic initiatives that benefit all Americans.

“We believe progressives owe U.S. voters a hope-inspiring alternative to populist outrage and the false remedies of nativism, protectionism and democratic socialism,” writes Will Marshall, PPI President.

“I encourage anyone looking for optimistic ideas to create more jobs, wealth, and prosperity for hard working Americans to read PPI’s new report using innovation to spur growth,” said Congressman Ron Kind (D-Wis.), Chairman of the New Democrat Coalition. “This report is full of forward thinking policy initiatives that help grow the American economy.”

“In the midst of today’s populist uprising, it’s up to our leaders to recognize the real reasons why our economy isn’t working for everyone and to fight for effective solutions,” said Governor Jack Markell (D-Del.). “PPI’s blueprint gives policymakers a roadmap to create opportunity for all Americans by harnessing the unstoppable forces of globalization and technological innovation, while opposing the impractical, and sometimes dangerous, proposals offered by the political extremes.”

The anger on which populists feed is rooted in a real economic problem: America has been stuck in a slow growth trap since 2000. This long spell of economic stagnation has held down wages and living standards and shrunk the middle class. What the nation needs is a forward-looking plan for moving the U.S. economy into high gear. Instead, as the PPI blueprint notes, today’s populists peddle nostalgia for our country’s past industrial glory but offer few practical ideas for building new American prosperity in today’s global knowledge economy.

Unleashing Innovation and Growth seeks to fill this vacuum in the presidential campaign, offering bold ideas for unleashing the collective ingenuity of the American people—harnessing disruptive change, raising skills, lowering tax and regulatory barriers to individual initiative and creativity, and experimenting with innovative ways to rebuild middle class wealth and enable more Americans to exit poverty.

Summary of Key Proposals

Unleash Innovation
• Spread innovation across the economy: Adopt a new “Innovation Platform” aimed at stimulating public and private investment in new ideas and enterprises, and at diffusing innovation across the entire economy.
• Improve the regulatory climate for innovation: Tackle the mounting costs of regulatory accumulation, the constant layering of new rules atop old ones; Make systemic changes to regulatory agencies to make promoting investment, innovation and new enterprises part of their core mission; Rein in occupational licensing requirements that screen out many low-income entrepreneurs; Lift outdated restrictions on lending to small business; give businesses incentives to offer more flexible work, including paid leave.
• Innovate our way to clean growth: Implement a more innovative energy strategy that simultaneously advances two vital interests: powering economic growth and assuring a healthy environment; Recognize that, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. and the world will have to tap all fuels—renewable, nuclear, and fossil—to meet growing energy demand and sustain global economic growth; Institute a nationwide carbon tax to curb greenhouse emissions while driving investment to clean and efficient energy.
• Democratize trade: Sell more of America’s highly competitive exports to a growing global middle class; promote the free flow of data across global borders; support innovative trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that lift labor, environment and human rights standards in developing countries and enable more Americans to benefit from trade; Seize new opportunities for U.S. small businesses and entrepreneurs to use low-cost digital platforms to tap into global growth.

Align Fiscal Policy with Innovation and Growth
• Embrace pro-growth tax reform: Advocate for a dramatic shift from income to consumption taxes to stimulate investment in productive economic activities rather than those favored by the current tax code; Close loopholes that benefit special interests and dramatically simplify taxes for most Americans; Raise enough money to cut corporate income taxes down to globally competitive levels, and reduce taxes that penalize innovation and hiring.
• Modernize public works: Accurately measure the true economic impact of infrastructure spending; open infrastructure markets to private capital; define a strategic role for Washington through a national infrastructure bank; impose firm deadlines on project approvals and licensing process.

Groom the World’s Most Talented Workers
• Reinvent public school: Champion new models of school governance that enable more school autonomy and innovation, more customized learning, rigorous standards, and genuine accountability and results.
• Create new pathways into middle class jobs: Create a more promising approach to “career pathways” by combining classroom training and work experience through a sequence of jobs, within or across firms in an industry, and a sequence of credentials that signal their growing skill levels.
• Cut college costs for everyone: Rein in costs and decrease debt by encouraging colleges to offer three-year degrees rather than the traditional four-year program and focus policies on competency, rather than credit hours.

Build Middle Class Wealth
• Narrow the wealth gap with universal pensions: Champion “universal pension” accounts that would enable all workers to save for retirement, navigate the maze of tax-favored retirement plans, and take their pensions with them when changing jobs.
• Help families save for homeownership: Tackle the twin problems of declining homeownership and souring housing costs for both owners and renters by creating a new, tax-preferred mechanism for down payment savings—“Home K”—to lower obstacles to homeownership, like tight credit and down payment requirements, for first-time homebuyers and to promote savings.

Fight Poverty with Empowerment
• Empower people with smart phones: Use modern technology to cut through bureaucratic barriers to government safety net programs, consolidate benefit streams, enable people living in poverty more access to the information they need, and apply online for social supports; Encourage federal, state, and local governments to create online H.O.P.E. (Health, Opportunity, and Personal Empowerment) accounts and action plans.
• Expand housing choices for low-income Americans: Convert some federal rent subsidies into incentives for homeownership to relieve the burden on low-income families of high housing costs and reduce the waiting list for subsidized housing, without raising taxes or adding to the federal deficit.

Download Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism.

Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As Americans choose a new president in 2016, populist anger dominates the campaign. To hear Donald Trump or Senator Bernie Sanders tell it, America is either a global doormat or a sham democracy controlled by the “one percent.” These dark narratives are caricatures, but they do stem from a real dilemma: America is stuck in a slow- growth trap that holds down wages and living standards. How to break this long spell of economic stagnation is the central question in this election.

Today’s populists peddle nostalgia for our country’s past industrial glory but offer few practical ideas for building a new American prosperity in today’s global knowledge economy. Progressives owe U.S. voters a hopeful alternative to populist outrage and the false panaceas of nativism, protectionism, and democratic socialism. What America needs is a forward-looking plan to unleash innovation, stimulate productive investment, groom the world’s most talented workers, and put our economy back on a high-growth path. It’s time to banish fear and pessimism and trust instead in the liberal and individualist values and enterprising culture that have always made America great.

Download Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism

Washington Post: The new Democratic Party proposal to rival Bernie Sanders’ socialism

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Simplicity is one of Bernie Sanders’ great strengths: Corporations and the rich have rigged the economy. His solutions sound simple, even when the plans behind them are complicated: college for all, health care for all, tax the rich, break up big banks. He trails Hillary Clinton in presidential delegates to this point, and he remains an underdog for the Democratic nomination, but Sanders has already pulled Clinton, and the party, toward a more populist, more socialist policy agenda, thanks in part to that clarity of message.

The centrist Democrats who oppose that leftward lurch have struggled to match his simplicity. They tend to view the economy through a lens of skills and adaptation, not power and treachery. Many of them pushed in the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, to expand global trade and deregulate the financial sector. They now concede those efforts did not go according to script, particularly for middle-class workers, but they are not calling for a full rewrite in response.

Their risk, in this election and moving forward, is to define themselves solely as anti-Democratic-socialist – the folks who don’t like the stuff that a lot of Democrats like about Sanders.

The Progressive Policy Institute is the latest centrist Democratic institution to try to counter that image. Today it will release what its president, Will Marshall, calls a “radical” agenda to get America working for the working class again. The report is called “Unleashing Innovation and Growth: a Progressive Alternative to Populism,” and it is organized around a straightforward, if not perfectly simple, principle.

Read more at The Washington Post

Democracy: A New Kind of Public Works

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Barack Obama is thinking big as his presidency enters the final stretch. The centerpiece of his last budget, unveiled this week, is a $300 billion plan for a “clean transportation system”—the biggest federal infrastructure push since President Eisenhower launched the interstate highway system. Here at last is a fix that’s equal to the magnitude of America’s immobility crisis. In polarized Washington, however, it’s going nowhere.

Obama’s proposal would effectively double U.S. transportation spending, paying for it with a $10-per-barrel oil tax. There’s no way a Republican-dominated Congress will vote for a new energy tax, even with oil prices down to around $30 a barrel. House Speaker Paul Ryan already has dismissed the plan as “an election-year distraction.” Nor can the White House expect many Democratic candidates to rally around what is essentially a middle-class tax hike.

Obama, the arch realist, knows all this. But he seems determined to ensure that two issues on which he’s made frustratingly little headway—clean energy and infrastructure investment—stay high on the nation’s political agenda. And if his visionary proposal injects these issues into campaign 2016, so much the better.

It’s hard to imagine a more urgent national priority than modernizing America’s decrepit transportation and water systems and updating our energy-wasting electrical grid.

With our economy stuck in low gear six years into “recovery,” making such investments now should be a no-brainer. It’s a proven way to create good middle-class jobs, boost the productivity of U.S. businesses and workers, and lay new foundations for future growth.

The deterioration of our country’s economic infrastructure has long been glaringly obvious, but U.S. political leaders have failed to coalesce behind policies for reversing it. A big reason is that Congress is controlled by a new breed of Republicans who regard all federal spending with kneejerk hostility. Conservative lawmakers seem to have lost the ability to distinguish between investments that generate tangible economic returns to society and spending that fuels present consumption.

Continue reading at Democracy.

Innovation in a Rules-Bound World: How Regulatory Improvement Can Spur Growth

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Economists and policymakers are always lauding innovation. In its purest form, innovation is like a free lunch: it boosts growth and incomes, creates good jobs, and opens up new possibilities for social reform and social mobility.

Today, innovation is needed more than ever. Productivity growth has been slowing in recent years. The 10-year growth rate of nonfarm business labor productivity is only 1.3 percent in 2015, compared to 3 percent as recently as 2005. A full one percentage point of that 1.7 percentage point decline, or more than half, is due to a slowdown in the growth rate of multifactor productivity, an indicator of innovation. In other words, the economic evidence suggests that this is an era of relatively weak innovation, outside of information technology.

Indeed, encouraging innovation is more essential than ever before. Fortunately, industries such as health care, education, finance, and tech are attempting to adopt new technologies that offer the chance of faster growth and higher wages, desperately needed to overcome years of stagnation.

But regulators, both in Washington, and at the state and local level, struggle with a rapid pace of innovation. Innovation, especially disruptive innovation, embodies unpredictability, change, and the creation of new products and markets. By contrast, regulators thrive on rules and predictability. They maintain a process of identifying an existing market failure and then issuing regulations that aims to make consumers and society better off by correcting that failure. The regulation process is far more straightforward when markets change slowly and predictably.

Download “2015.12-Mandel_Carew_Innovation-in-a-Rules-Bound-World-How-Regulatory-Improvement-Can-Spur-Growth”

Agenda 2016: Reviving U.S. Economic Growth

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) teamed up with Columbia University’s Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy to co-host a compelling symposium Nov. 6-7 in New York on revitalizing the U.S. economy. The event featured a distinguished roster of Richman Center economists and scholars, as well as PPI analysts and special guests, and more than two-dozen top policy aides to Members of Congress, Governors, and Mayors.

Held on Columbia’s Manhattan campus, the symposium examined the U.S. economy’s recent performance, as well as the causes of the long-term decline of productivity and economic growth. Against the backdrop of the 2016 election debate, the participants grappled with specific ideas for unleashing more economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, reforming taxes, improving regulation, expanding trade and reducing inequality by ensuring that all children have access to high-quality public schools.

The discussions, which were off-the-record to encourage maximum candor, featured the following speakers and topics:

  • An overview of the U.S. economy’s recent performance by Abby Joseph Cohen, President of the Global Markets Institute and Senior Investment Strategist at Goldman Sachs.
  • A roundtable on key elements of a high-growth strategy, led by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI, Andrew Stern, former head of the Service Employees International Union and now Ronald O. Perelman Senior Fellow at the Richman Center, and
Philip K. Howard, Founder of Common Good, a nonpartisan reform coalition. The conversation touched on ways to improve the regulatory environment for innovation, including reducing regulatory accumulation and requiring faster permitting for big infrastructure projects, as well as a lively debate on the future of work in a tech-driven knowledge economy.
  • An insightful macroeconomic analysis of why productivity and economic growth have slowed, by Pierre Yared, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Yared highlighted three potential contributors to the slowdown: labor demographics and participation; “capital intensity” or business investment; and the “production efficiency” of U.S. companies.
  • A detailed examination of the impact of energy innovation—from the shale boom to renewables and the construction of a new, “smart” grid—on jobs and economic growth. Leading this segment were Jason Bordoff, formerly energy advisor to President Obama and Director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, and Derrick Freeman, Director of PPI’s Energy Innovation Project.
  • A dinner conversation at the Columbia Club with Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in Economics and Director of Columbia’s Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Drawing on his recent book, Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change, he stressed the importance of indigenous innovation in creating the conditions for broad upward mobility. He also emphasized the crucial role of “modern” or individualistic cultural values in sustaining the mass innovation and entrepreneurship America needs to flourish again.
  • A detailed look at business taxation and reform as a potential driver of economic growth. It featured Michael Graetz, Alumni Professor of Tax Law at Columbia Law School, David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and the Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics at the Columbia Law School and Co-director at the Richman Center, as well as PPI’s Michael Mandel. The discussion ranged widely over global tax frictions, including the OECD’s new “BEPS” project; the need for corporate tax reform; “patent boxes” and mounting U.S. interest in consumption taxes.
  • A roundtable on trade and productivity growth with Ed Gerwin, PPI Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity and the versatile Michael Mandel. Noting President Obama’s controversial call for a Trans-Pacific Partnership, Gerwin stressed the agreement’s potential for “democratizing” trade by making it easier for U.S. small businesses to connect with customers abroad. Mandel underscored another PPI priority: raising awareness among policymakers of the growing contribution of cross-border data flows to growth here and abroad, and the need to push back against proposals that would impede “digital trade”
  • A luncheon presentation on “financial regulation after the crisis” by Jeffrey Gordon, Richard Paul Richman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and Co-director of the Richman Center. Gordon described the new regime put in place by Dodd-Frank and other rules to guard against “systemic risk” of another financial meltdown, and suggested its “perimeter” may been to be expanded beyond banks.
  • The symposium’s final panel featured a vigorous discussion on K-12 education reform and the economy. The discussants were Jonah Rockoff, Associate Professor at the Columbia Business School and David Osborne, who directs PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, and is a co-author of the seminal “Reinventing Government.” Rockoff highlighted research showing that the returns to school improvement are enormous, and recommended reforms that could increase school quality. Osborne traced the evolution of school governance in America, and offered detailed looks at new models emerging in cities like New Orleans and Washington, D.C., both of which are leaders in the public charter school movement.

The symposium gave the policy professionals who participated a rare opportunity to delve deeply into complicated economic realities, guided by presenters of extraordinarily high caliber. The conversations were highly illuminating and will inform PPI’s work on Agenda 2016—a new blueprint for reviving U.S. economic dynamism and opportunity.

U.S. News & World Report: Put Infrastructure Back on Track

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Highway Trust Fund is a good first step to funding infrastructure, but private investment is key.

Before we celebrate pending congressional action over funding for the Highway Trust Fund – be it a short-term deal now or long-term deal later – consider that the United States needs about nine times that amount annually to get U.S. infrastructure back on track.

The Department of Transportation estimates that we need to spend between $124 and $150 billion a year just to maintain our current, decrepit, system. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that to actually improve the quality of current infrastructure, the price tag rises to about $450 billion annually, or over $3.6 trillion, by 2020.

HighwayTrustFundFallsShort The Highway Trust Fund supports about $50 billion in infrastructure projects annually. This is known as the infrastructure funding gap – the country needs to spend a lot more on infrastructure than current policy funding allows for. No matter how you calculate the need, the heralded Highway Trust Fund starts to look more like legislative symbolism than pragmatic policy solution.

There is broad bipartisan agreement around the importance of infrastructure and the Highway Trust Fund, but little consensus on how to pay for it. This political gridlock, and overall federal and state belt-tightening, means there’s a need for new ways to pay for infrastructure.

That’s where the private sector comes in. They have the resources to help fill this gap and modernize America’s infrastructure.

There are large benefits to modernizing. New research from economists Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Michael Mandel for the McGraw Hill Financial Global Institute (which I run), “Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending,” shows that infrastructure investment has a spending multiplier that yields a significant contribution to gross domestic product, ranging from a conservative estimate of 0.8 to 1.6 times the original amount invested. A survey of existing studies shows that $100 billion in infrastructure spending would contribute between $62.5 billion and $165.5 billion over 20 years, with $12.5 billion to $33.1 billion in new tax revenue receipts.RoadsAreDeteriorating

Investments in public infrastructure projects consistently produce stable, long-term returns on capital. Institutional investors, looking to match these qualities with their own long-term liabilities, are eager to leverage low interest rates and an economic upswing to invest in U.S. infrastructure. By one estimate, there could be as much as $7 trillion available around the world for long-term investment in U.S. infrastructure. With new financial products like Build America Bonds and the proposed Qualified Public Infrastructure Bonds, this untapped capital reserve is waiting to close the U.S. infrastructure deficit.

Given the critical importance of rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, the significant returns on investment and the contribution to national output, restarting the Highway Trust Fund is a good first step. But let’s be clear-eyed about the large funding gap and the potential sources for filling it.

This piece was cross posted from U.S. News & World Report.

Dynamic Scoring and Infrastructure Spending

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We review recent trends in federal infrastructure spending and the policy case for dynamic scoring of revenue and spending legislation. The use of dynamic scoring depends upon the magnitudes of near‐term impacts on economy‐wide spending and the long‐run impacts on productivity. We conclude that federal infrastructure investment should be dynamically scored.

A simple example suggests that $100 billion in new infrastructure spending could generate an extra $62.5 to $165.5 billion in national output over the next twenty years, based on a range of scenarios. Assuming a 20 percent effective tax rate, this $100 billion infrastructure investment would generate a 20‐year revenue offset ranging from $12.5 to $33.1 billion.

Download “201507-MHFIGI-Dynamic-Scoring-AAF-PPI-Final”

A Bottom Up Approach to Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With last year’s landmark U.S.-China agreement on climate change, the Obama administration has raised the bar for America when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). That deal set new targets for reducing emissions by 26—28 percent (from 2005) levels by 2025, well above the previous pledge of 17 percent by 2020. Given implacable Republican opposition to taking action against global warming, how can the United States deliver on this ambitious promise?

Congress has tried, and failed repeatedly, to pass legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions. In June of 2009, the House of Representatives, then controlled by Democrats, narrowly passed a bill that placed an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Attempts to move a Senate bill floundered in the summer of 2010 on Democratic defections; monolithic Republican opposition and, some environmentalists complained, tepid White House support. That fall, Republicans took back the House and narrowed the Democrat majority in the Senate, killing any prospect of national legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The impasse led President Obama to reach for the only policy lever he had left—executive action. In a landmark 2007 decision, the Supreme Court gave the Environmental Protection Agency the green light to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Download “2015.03-Freeman_A-Bottom-Up-Approach-to-Reducing-US-Carbon-Emissions”

Wall Street Journal: A Disconnect on Municipal Broadband

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Should city governments get into the Internet service business, competing with the likes of Verizon, AT&T and Comcast for the right to pipe the Web into your living room or office? President Obama thinks so. He visited Cedar Falls, Iowa, on Jan. 14 to laud the city’s publicly owned utility, which offers residents fiber-optic Internet. He urged other municipalities to follow its example.

“Today, tens of millions of Americans have only one choice for that next-generation broadband, so they’re pretty much at the whim of whatever Internet provider is around,” Mr. Obama said. “And what happens when there’s no competition? You’re stuck on hold. You’re watching the loading icon spin. You’re waiting, and waiting, and waiting. And meanwhile, you’re wondering why your rates keep on getting jacked up when the service doesn’t seem to improve.”

Government-owned networks, the White House claims, can bring healthy competition to Internet service, increasing speeds and lowering prices. Mr. Obama even included a line about this in his recent State of the Union address, saying he intended to “help folks build the fastest networks.” Unfortunately for the president, his premise—that our current broadband is slow, costly and inaccessible to many Americans—simply does not check out.

Internet speeds in the U.S. are among the fastest in the world. More than 90% of American households are now served by connections capable of neck-snapping speeds of 100 megabits per second. (Streaming a movie from Netflix on the “ultra high-definition” setting requires a connection of only 25 megabits per second.) Many consumers choose to pay lower fees for slower service. Still, if individual U.S. states were ranked by average broadband speed alongside countries from across the globe, we would hold 12 of the top 20 spots.

Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal.

The Hill: The Keystone distraction

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Senate will vote soon on what the GOP has made their top legislative priority: expedited approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Given the realities of today’s crude oil market, the political wrangling over Keystone has a decidedly retro feel.

The United States has experienced an energy revolution since the Keystone XL pipeline was first proposed seven years ago. Most important is America’s shale oil and gas boom, which has contributed to a sharp drop in global oil prices. With U.S. oil production in particular surging, why do Republicans persist in claiming that Keystone is a matter of such urgent national interest?

The answer clearly has more to do with politics than with the new realities of U.S. energy abundance.

The energy sector has become an important driver of U.S. investment during our painfully slow economic recovery. Investment is projected to total $890 billion over the next two decades. And all this investment is spawning good, middle-class jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, inadequate infrastructure constrains our ability to take full advantage of such investment and job growth.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Pipeline Politics: The Keystone Distraction

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The decision by Senate and House Republicans to make approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline their first legislative priority has a decidedly retro feel. Much has changed since the Keystone project was first proposed in 2008. Most important is America’s shale oil and gas boom, which has contributed to a sharp drop in global oil prices. With U.S. oil production in particular surging, why do Republicans persist in claiming that Keystone is a matter of such urgent national interest?

The answer clearly has more to do with politics than with the new realities of U.S. energy abundance. Republicans see Keystone as a classic wedge issue that splits two important Democratic constituencies, labor and environmentalists. So much for claims by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others that the GOP will use its new Congressional majority to govern responsibly and put problem-solving over partisanship.

That’s a shame, because the Keystone debate is a distraction from a bigger and more important issue: How to move America’s shale windfall to market. A good portion of U.S. production is happening in places like North Dakota, which is far outside America’s original “oil patch.” When Keystone was first proposed, about 60% of domestic production came from Alaska, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico, where significant oil and gas infrastructure is located. However, with production now occurring in shale developments like North Dakota, surpluses are developing at storage and transportation hubs making it difficult to get to market.

Download “2015.01-Freeman_Pipeline-Politics_The-Keystone-Distraction.pdf/”

Obama’s Muni Broadband Initiative: Bad Economics, Bad Politics

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here are some staggering statistics: Since 2006, state and local real investment in highways and streets has fallen by 22%.  Their spending on sewer systems, in real terms, is also down by 22%. And real investment by state and local governments in water systems has fallen by a stunning 34% (chart below).

Meanwhile, over the same period, private real investment by telecommunications and broadcasting companies is up by 13%, according to statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

broadband

Why, then, does President Obama want to load yet another spending burden–muni broadband–on localities that are already stretched too thin to cover their existing obligations? On Wednesday the President unleashed a set of initiatives designed to make it easier for cities and towns to build their own broadband networks.   Setting up muni broadband networks certainly has some superficial appeal—apparently creating more competition for private ISPs and offering cheaper rates to poor residents.

But there’s an enormous problem: State and local governments are already  struggling to come up with the funds to maintain the current infrastructure of roads, bridges, sewer and water systems.  Government infrastructure spending in real terms is way down compared to before the recession, leading to potholed roads, leaky water systems, and inadequate sewers.

Meanwhile private investment in telecom and broadcasting has continued to rise, boosting network speeds for both wireless and wired broadband.  Private companies are putting private money into improving the nation’s networks, without any cost to the taxpayers.

So if state and local governments have any spare change—or rather, if they have any of the taxpayer’s spare change—they shouldn’t put it into building broadband networks that would duplicate already existing private networks. Rather, they should fix the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure for which they are legally and politically responsible, and for which there are no private alternatives.

Focusing on rebuilding traditional infrastructure can have big economic payoffs. As Diana Carew and myself noted in a March 2014 PPI policy memo– ”Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth:  Surveying New Post-Crisis Evidence”–recent studies show that investment in transportation infrastructure can have large positive multiplier effects on the local economy.

Finally, running a muni broadband network is hard and expensive, especially since broadband networks–unlike roads and water systems–need continuous upgrading to keep with technological change.  Does the Democratic party–and local politicians—really want to be on the phone when voters complain about their Internet service? In the end, Obama’s muni broadband plan looks like both bad economics and bad politics.

 

How private investment is saving America’s infrastructure

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On August 3, 2014, the first cars drove the new and much-needed Port of Miami Tunnel. The project broke ground in 2010 and was intended to ease congestion in downtown Miami.

What set this project apart from others is the way it was financed – through a so-called “public-private partnership” (P3) –  in which a consortium of private investors provide financing for projects and are repaid by a state or local government over time.

Traditionally, infrastructure projects have been largely funded by the federal government through grants to states, which in turn pass funding on to localities. Until recently, P3s have largely stayed in the background, accounting for just a small fraction of total infrastructure financing.

But projects like the Port of Miami Tunnel are likely to be more commonplace as cash-strapped governments look for other resources to replace crumbling infrastructure.

Continue reading at Republic 3.0.