Posts Tagged ‘ Economy ’

« Older Entries

Scale and Innovation in Today’s Economy

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011
Michael Mandel


Michael Mandel is the chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute and the founder of Visible Economy LLC, a New York-based news and education company.

by Michael Mandel

Conventional wisdom these days says that small is better when it comes to innovation and putting new ideas into practice. Large enterprises are typically thought of as hidebound defenders of the status quo, dominating by market power and brute force rather than technological and innovative prowess.

Yet reality is far more complicated than this simple small versus big distinction. As we all know many common-sense beliefs turn out to be only partly true, or not to be true at all.

In this policy memo we will reconsider the link between scale (size) and innovation. After 20 years where startups have rightly dominated the innovation headlines, we will show that the pendulum may be swinging back. As a result, there are reasons to believe that scale may be a plus for innovation in today’s economy, not a minus. We will then relate scale to government policy, U.S. competitiveness and prosperity.

The now-heretical idea that scale is an advantage for innovation actually dates back more than 60 years. Back then, Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter, the inventor of the term ‘creative destruction’, suggested that large-scale firms were “the most powerful engine of progress.” Following after his work, economists developed what came to be known as the “Schumpeterian Hypothesis.” The first part of the Schumpeterian Hypothesis was the argument that bigger firms have more of an incentive to spend on innovation than a smaller one. For example, if we compare a company that manufactures 50 million t-shirts a year versus one that manufactures 10,000 t-shirts a year, the larger company is much more like to spend the big bucks needed to develop and test a new process for dyeing the t-shirts.

The second part of the Schumpeterian Hypothesis is the observation that companies with more market power might also be more willing to invest in innovation. The argument is that if a firm in an ultra-competitive market innovates, the new product or service is quickly copied by rivals, so that the gains from innovations are quickly competed away. Conversely, a firm with market power has the ability to hold onto some of its gains from innovation, so it may pay to invest in product or other improvements.

Together, these two conjectures are among the most controversial and most widely studied of economic theories. Economists and business experts have generated a long series of theoretical papers, econometric analyses, case studies, and anecdotal reports, examining the impact of scale on innovation.

After all this research, we can summarize the economic evidence for and against the Schumpeterian hypothesis in two words: It depends. Part of the problem is that innovation influences scale, as well as vice versa. A successful and innovative small or medium-size company will often grow to be a successful and innovative large company, which perhaps dominates its market because of its very success.

At the same time, the link between scale and innovation, positive or negative, depends on the economic environment. In this policy memo, we will suggest that the current U.S. economy is dealing with a particular set of conditions that will make scale a positive influence on innovation. First, economic and job growth today are increasingly driven by large-scale innovation ecosystems, such as the ones surrounding the iPhone, Android, and the introduction of 4G mobile networks. These ecosystems require management by a core company or companies with the resources and scale to provide leadership and technological direction. This task typically cannot be handled by a small company or startup.

Second, globalization puts more of a premium on size than ever before. A company that looks large in the context of the domestic economy may be relatively small in the context of the global economy. In order to capture the fruits of innovation, U.S. companies have to have the resources to stand against foreign competition, much of which may be state supported.

Finally, the U.S. faces a set of enormous challenges in reforming large-scale integrated systems such as health, energy, and education. Conventional venture-backed startups don’t have the resources to tackle these mammoth problems. Only large firms have the staying power and the scale to potentially implement systemic innovations in these industries.

We finish this policy brief with some observations about scale, innovation, and government policy. In particular, we raise questions about whether an aggressive policy of filing antitrust actions against America’s key technological leaders is really the optimal course for improving U.S. competitiveness, raising living standards, and boosting job growth in the U.S.

Read the entire memo.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Slider | No Comments »

Italy Boots Berlusconi

Monday, November 14th, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

BerlusconiA funny thing happened on my way to an international forum on democracy and human rights in Rome last week: the Italian government fell. It was hard to concentrate on the business at hand with crowds gathering in piazzas to demand the head, figuratively speaking, of the man who has dominated Italian politics since 1994—Silvio Berlusconi.

What sparked the crisis was a sharp spike last week in Italian bond yields, which raised doubts about Italy’s ability to service its $2.6 trillion debt. The prospect of a default by Europe’s fourth-largest economy sent tremors throughout the euro zone. Forget about Greece: If big countries like Italy and Spain can’t pay their debts, European banks that hold all that sovereign debt will fail. Then someone—most likely Germany—will have to finance a massive bank bailout just like the United States did in 2007. Otherwise, a financial collapse would likely throw Europe, and probably the United States, into a bona fide depression.

Fortunately, this prospect seems to have concentrated minds in Italy. Arriving in Rome on Thursday, I found its usually fractious political class galvanized by the crisis and resolved to put a new government in place before the markets open today.

On Friday, the Italian Senate passed a budget with an initial set of reforms (including a hike in the retirement age) tailored to European Union specifications. On Saturday, Berulsconi resigned, as gleeful crowds chanted “Bye Bye Silvio” and sang the “Hallelujah” chorus outside the Quirinal palace. And on Sunday, Mario Monti, a widely respected technocrat, agreed to form a unity government.

As our own Congress dithers endlessly over debt reduction, it was nice to see democratic politicians somewhere acting purposefully and with dispatch. How long the Monti government will last, however, is anyone’s guess, especially since it must pass painful reforms aimed at paring down bloated state bureaucracies and stimulating private enterprise. But Rome’s tumultuous weekend seems to have made several things clear.

First, Italy’s sovereign debt crisis probably has driven a stake through the political heart of Berlusconi. In recent years, he has presided more than governed as Italy’s once-vibrant economy slowed down and its borrowing soared. Like a latter-day Nero, the 75-year-old Berlusconi, Italy’s richest man, seemed more interested in fiddling with underage girls in “bunga-bunga” parties than tackling structural reform of Italy’s economy.

Second, Berlusconi’s fall and Monti’s government of national unity have the potential to rescramble Italian politics in useful ways. Beneath a top layer of supposedly apolitical technocrats, Monti is expected to fill key sub-cabinet level posts with leaders from the center and center-left, shutting out the right-wing Northern League as well as the left’s unreconstructed Communists and Socialists. This could spur the emergence of a new coalition of the progressive center dedicated to reviving Italy’s global competitiveness rather than rehearsing old ideological arguments. Such a coalition might include pragmatic progressives like Rome’s former Mayor, Francesco Rutelli and Gianni Vernetti, whose Alliance of Democrats organized a fascinating, if overshadowed, conference featuring democracy activists from the Middle East, North Africa, China, and elsewhere.

Third, the imbalance between the power of global markets and the weakness of European governance has reached a sort of tipping point. The markets are now punishing spendthrift governments like Greece and Italy that have borrowed massively to cover the growing gap between public spending and anemic private sector growth. For these and other European countries, joining the euro-zone in 2002 was an opportunity to relax fiscal constraints, because such profligacy would no longer lead to currency devaluations. It turns out, however, that a common monetary union also requires common fiscal policies, and the 17 members of the euro-zone have no institutions for setting or enforcing such policies.

At its heart, then, the euro crisis is really a political crisis. I heard many Italian political leaders over the weekend argue that the salvation of the euro lies in “more Europe.” This means a resumption of the stalled march toward more comprehensive economic and political integration, which of course means EU members must surrender more sovereignty. This won’t be easy, especially if to average Europeans it means the pain and sacrifice of a thorough-going fiscal retrenchment, or bailouts for countries that have evaded the consequences of irresponsible policies by free-riding on the euro.

Italians, nonetheless, seem ready to cast their lot with Europe, even as they search for more effective political leadership to revitalize their economy.

Photo credit: Downing Street

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics | No Comments »

Obama Needs New Growth Story

Thursday, September 1st, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

President ObamaThe White House this week is dribbling out new details about Obama’s forthcoming jobs package. Liberals already are complaining that the president is thinking too small, while conservatives dismiss his ideas as just more “stimulus” in drag.

Neither critique gets to the heart of the problem. The U.S. economy is enduring an investment and job drought that began well before the Great Recession hit late in 2007. The public is strikingly pessimistic about the nation’s economic prospects and has lost confidence in the conventional remedies pushed by both parties.

More than a batch of new programs, Americans need a new story about how to regain our economic dynamism. We need a fundamentally new model for economic growth, and the president’s kit-bag of new micro-initiatives doesn’t add up to one.

His proposals mostly seem sensible, but absent a new vision for dealing with the economy’s structural problems, they give off a whiff of spaghetti-against-the-wall desperation. The administration is hoping that something, anything will move the needle on job creation and get unemployment trending down.

Here, according to various media accounts, is what the White House job package is likely to include:

  • A $5,000 tax credit for hew hires.
  • A five percent reduction in payroll taxes on any net increase in wages.
  • $50 billion in new spending on infrastructure.
  • An overhaul of patent laws to encourage faster innovation.
  • A new mortgage refinancing scheme to help “underwater” homeowners avoid foreclosures that are depressing housing prices.

Liberals have a point in arguing that these initiatives are unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on jobs and economic growth. The tax credit and payroll tax reduction will likely expand employment, but they also will reward companies for hiring workers they would have hired in any case. Michael Greenstone, former chief economist for the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the tax credit will create 900,000 additional jobs at a cost of $30 billion. The United States must create 21 million new jobs over the next decade to return to full employment.

Modernizing America’s antiquated infrastructure is essential, even if the immediate job gains are likely to be modest. While it’s conceivable that $50 billion could leverage large-scale private investment in new infrastructure, there’s a catch: The administration does not envision funneling that money into a truly independent infrastructure bank. That’s likely to scare off private investors, who need assurances that big capital projects will be chosen on economic rather than political grounds.

The real problem, however, isn’t that Obama isn’t spending enough. It’s that this spray of programmatic buckshot won’t deal with structural impediments to economic innovation and growth. As PPI has argued, U.S. policy makers need a new model of economic growth centered on production, not consumption; on saving and investing, not borrowing; and on exports, not imports.

Obama needs to fit his specific initiatives within the broader story of an American economic comeback sparked by a shift from debt-fueled consumption to domestic production. This narrative should explain how overconsumption—by both U.S. households and governments—helped to create the job slowdown, wage stagnation, financial bubbles and exploding debts that have plagued our economy since 2000. It would connect America’s twin economic imperatives: creating jobs and controlling the national debt. It would say: If we don’t curb the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending (mostly for health care consumption), we will squeeze out strategic public investments the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital—infrastructure, skilled workers, and new technology.

But a “producer society” narrative doesn’t just reinforce progressive demands for more strategic public investment. It also lends weight to conservative calls for policies that create a climate more conducive to innovation, entrepreneurship, and business creation. In fact, it will take a new fusion of liberal and conservative economic prescriptions to get America moving again.

Key elements of such a fusion include a sweeping overhaul of personal and corporate taxes, a light-handed approach to regulating companies that invest heavily in innovation,  stronger constraints on Medicare and Medicaid spending, new investments in technical education to supply workers for advanced manufacturing, and the transformation of our archaic K-12 school system by choice and digital learning. And, as I’ve written elsewhere, it also requires a new partnership between U.S. workers and those companies that are investing in creating jobs in the United States.

President Obama’s ideas for spurring job growth are fine as far as they go, but they don’t go nearly far enough. He needs to offer the country a new story of economic success, that once again makes America a dynamo of production and middle class job creation.

Photo credit: OFA

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

The Lost Decade

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

U.S. Job MarketWhether U.S. Presidents succeed or fail often depends on a big factor beyond their control: the timing of the business cycle. Lucky Presidents – Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush – experienced downturns early in their first term, leaving plenty of time for an economic rebound to lift them to reelection.

Barack Obama, who took office months after the Great Recession started, must be cursing his luck. Just at the point when investment and jobs normally would be coming back, the U.S. economy has taken a sickening swoon.

Last month’s feeble job numbers – just 54,000 jobs created, far short of the 300,000 or more needed each month to return unemployment to pre-crisis levels – reinforced the public’s growing economic gloom. They also suggested that the administration has erred in viewing the economy’s problems as cyclical.

If that were true, the White House strategy of waiting for the economy to heal itself might make sense. But if America faces structural impediments to growth, we can’t just wait for the economy to revert to normal.

Since the Great Recession officially ended in the fall of 2009, the economy has grown just 2.8 percent per year, well below the average 4.6 percent growth that follows typical recessions, economist Lawrence Lindsey said. And instead of declining steadily, unemployment is rising again.

From GOP presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman to liberal columnist Paul Krugman, commentators across the spectrum are rightly talking about a “lost decade” of economic growth. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib, America has endured 11 straight years of lackluster growth since 2000, the last year in which economic growth exceeded four percent.

The job picture is even worse. As this useful chart shows, the U.S. economy created 23 million jobs on Clinton’s watch and 16 million on Reagan’s. Bush’s job-creation record is a paltry 3 million. And we can’t just blame the Great Recession. Even before it hit in December 2007, the rate of job growth lagged well behind the record of the previous decades.

No doubt about it: the aughts under Bush were a lost economic decade. While no president can be blamed for cyclical downturns, it is fair to say that Bush’s economic policies did little to address the structural roots of slower economic and job growth. On the contrary, his purblind economic policy mix – coupling a spending binge with deep tax cuts – helped dig America into a deep fiscal hole.

Nonetheless, the lingering economic malaise has cast a shadow over Obama’s reelection prospects and boosted Mitt Romney’s political stock – the two are now running neck-in-neck in the polls. The 2012 election will largely be a contest over which party has the most credible plan for reviving U.S. economic dynamism.

The Republicans have a simple fiscal theory that leads to an equally simple solution. They see the size and cost of government as the chief obstacle to growth. Cut public spending, and the economy will sit up on its haunches again and roar.

Many liberals, including Krugman, seem stuck in the Keynesian paradigm, arguing that the problem is inadequate demand, which means government needs to spend more until the economy recovers its “animal spirits.”

Obama is smart enough to reject a witless choice between less or more government. He has, however, yet to develop a plausible plan for restructuring the U.S. economy to unleash economic innovation, capture its benefits in good jobs that stay in America, and boost our ability to win in world markets.

Above all, Obama needs to spell out big, concrete initiatives that can inspire public confidence that his administration has properly diagnosed the economy’s structural ills and prescribed realistic remedies.

PPI has developed bold proposals that meet this standard: An independent National Infrastructure Bank, to unlock hundreds of billions of private investment in state-of-the-art transport, energy and water systems; pro-growth tax reform that closes inefficient tax expenditures and reduces the corporate tax rate; and a base-closing style commission charged with periodically pruning regulations that impede economic innovation and business start-ups, the engine of most new American job creation.

America can’t afford another lost economic decade – and neither can progressives. This is an FDR moment for Obama – a time for “bold, persistent experimentation” to get America’s economy moving again.

Photo credit: S. Hernandez

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Rebuilding America Is Job One

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Rebuilding AmericaAmid the high drama of fiscal brinkmanship in Washington, it’s easy to forget that reducing budget deficits isn’t the biggest economic challenge we face. Even more important is kick-starting the great American job machine and reversing our country’s slide in global competition.

Critical to both goals is shoring up the decaying physical foundations of national prosperity. Without world-class infrastructure, the United States won’t be able to attract private investment, sustain rapid technological innovation and productivity growth, or keep good jobs from going overseas.

According to a new Gallup poll, general economic concerns (35 percent) and unemployment (22 percent) top voters list of worries, with federal deficits and debt a distant third at 12 percent. Fiscal restraint is important, but it must be balanced against the larger imperatives of jobs and global competition. Among other things, this means leaving room for public investment to replenish the nation’s stock of physical capital.

America can’t build a more dynamic and globally competitive economy on the legacy infrastructure of the 20th Century. Thanks to their parents’ far-sighted public investments, baby boomers grew up in a country that set the world standard for modern infrastructure. But after a generation of underinvestment, compounded by politicized spending decisions, we now face a massive infrastructure deficit that exerts a severe drag on U.S. productivity.

Meanwhile, China and other fast-rising countries are building gleaming new airports and bullet trains. To keep from falling farther behind, the United States needs to make large-scale capital investments in repairing decrepit roads and bridges; upgrading air and sea ports; building “intelligent” transportation systems and smart energy grids; modernizing the air traffic control system; speeding up our pokey rail networks; and leading the world in deploying ultra-fast broadband.

But with the government strapped for cash, it’s reasonable to ask where the money to rebuild America will come from. The answer is that we need to look more to the private sector. U.S. companies are sitting on $2 trillion in idle cash, and pension funds, overseas investors and sovereign wealth funds also are looking for places to invest. Although the federal government will have to put up seed capital, its main role should be to leverage private investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure.

That’s why America needs a National Infrastructure Bank. As proposed by the bipartisan trio of Senators John Kerry, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Mark Warner, the bank would use a modest, one-time appropriation of $10 billion to leverage enormous investments — $640 billion over 10 years — for projects with the greatest potential to put Americans to work and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

President Obama has repeatedly endorsed a national infrastructure bank and proposed the idea again in the budget he sent to Congress in February. But the Senate bill (and a separate House proposal championed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro) have decided advantages over President Obama’s proposal. The president’s approach starts with a smart idea to create programs that work more with the private sector to find financing solutions. But unlike the Kerry proposal, it does not focus enough on the most powerful tools for leveraging private investment: loan programs that include a reasonable cap on the federal share of project costs. Obama’s bank would also be housed within the Department of Transportation, whereas the Kerry bill would make the bank an independent, quasi-public entity. That’s an important difference, because to attract hard-headed capitalists who expect a real economic return on their investments, the government’s financing facility must be genuinely free of political interference.

An independent infrastructure bank would select projects based on their ability to generate real economic returns rather than their influential political patrons. As a self-sustaining entity that would not rely on future appropriations from Congress, the bank would not be subject to the pork barreling and earmarking that distorts federal and state infrastructure spending, especially on transportation.

It’s time to get serious about our dilemma: the U.S. economy is creating too few jobs to bring down unemployment to pre-recession levels. For that, we’d need nearly 12 million new jobs, or about 100,000 more on average than the 200,000 the economy is creating each month. Big capital projects would immediately create those jobs where they are most desperately needed–in the hard-hit construction industry, which is still struggling with a 20 percent unemployment rate.

In the short run, a big national push to build modern infrastructure could create high-skill jobs that can’t be exported. In the long run, it will ensure America’s return to being an engine of production, not just a global center for consumption. That’s why, as Congress struggles to contain federal deficits and debt, it needs to make room for a National Infrastructure Bank to rebuild America.

This item is cross-posted at the Huffington Post.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Wingnut Watch: The Tea Party Celebrates Tax Day

Monday, April 18th, 2011
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The Tax Day (or more accurately, Tax Weekend) observances of the Tea Party movement weren’t as large or well-publicized as in the past, but they did reflect the hardening consensus of conservative activists against both the appropriations deal just agreed to by congressional Republicans, and the coming legislation increasing the public debt limit. This consensus is being reinforced by potential presidential candidates and other opinion leaders who are encouraging the perception that the Beltway GOP is once again “selling out” the conservative movement and its latest Tea Party incarnation.

This snapshot of the mood at New Hampshire Tea Party events by Michael Crowley is illustrative:

The overall picture is one of a restless Republican base that sees defeating Obama as a matter of national survival. Angry conservatives believe Washington is spending the country into oblivion, and that lazy freeloaders are leeching federal money at the expense of ever more squeezed middle-class taxpayers. They also feel that the Washington game is rigged against them: “We’re constantly being lied to,” fumed Dan Dwyer of Nashua at a local GOP confab on Thursday night, still angry that Republicans had “caved” in their budget negotiations with Democrats earlier this month.

At a Wisconsin Tea Party rally, anger at congressional Republicans was fed by none other than Sarah Palin, who “unleashed a withering critique of congressional Republicans Saturday, lambasting them for not cutting spending deeper and faster, and saying the party needs to ‘fight like a girl.’”  Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty, who spoke at a number of Tea Party events, has been urging Republicans to oppose a debt limit increase on the questionable grounds that arrangements could be made to avoid a federal credit default until the autumn.

The superficially confusing aspect of this rhetoric is that the conservatives who are being most vocal about the dire nature of the deficit-and-debt emergency are precisely the same people who are fearful that congressional Republicans might cut some long-term budget deal with Senate Democrats and the administration that leaves increased taxes on the wealthy on the table.  That’s why they are linking any approval of a debt limit increase not just to some deficit agreement, but to acceptance of the kind of deep spending cuts and “entitlement reforms” laid out in Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.

Accordingly, we will soon see Tea Party fire concentrate on those Senate Republicans said to be negotiating a deal that would include some tax increases.  The Republican point man in the so-called “Gang of Six” of bipartisan senators engaged in these negotiations, Saxby Chambliss of GA, is already drawing unfriendly home-state fire from Red State’s Erick Erickson, who had this to say today:

Senate Republicans are going to support raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes all while refusing to demand passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. House Republican Leaders will no doubt decide that . . . well . . . Republicans only control one house of one branch of government so . . . .

Bend over America.

This conflict will soon make it more obvious than ever that most conservative activists, including those identified with the Tea Party Movement, are less concerned with deficit reduction than with permanently shrinking the size and reach of the federal government and pushing both radical spending cuts and continued tax cuts.

On another front, there are growing signs that Republican elites have decided to give Donald Trump the same dismissive treatment that was said to have led to Sarah Palin’s steady decline in credibility as a potential presidential candidate.  Over the weekend, Karl Rove called Trump a “joke candidate.” Playing his snooty Tory role, George Will called The Donald a “blatherskite,” and warned he could seriously screw up Republican presidential candidate debates.  Slate’s Dave Weigel went to the trouble of reading Trump’s 2000 proto-campaign book, and noticed that Trump expressed a fondness for the Canadian single-payer health care system.  Surfing off that disclosure, the Club for Growth put out a release calling Trump a “liberal.”

It’s almost certain that this offensive was stimulated by the Public Policy Polling survey of Republicans that was released on Friday showing Trump jumping out into a sizable national lead over the rest of the potential presidential field.  Trump’s 26 percent is higher than any proto-candidate has registered in early national polls.  And the internals, showing 23 percent of Republicans saying that could not vote for a candidate who believes Barack Obama was born in the United States (and another 39 percent saying they weren’t sure if they could or not), were probably terrifying to beltway GOPers.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix | No Comments »

Obama Reframes the Fiscal Fight

Thursday, April 14th, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

Entering the lists at last, President Obama delivered a stout defense of progressive values yesterday and checked the rightward drift of the deficit debate.  For all its strengths, though, his speech also left open the question of whether he and his party are ready to grapple effectively with surging health and entitlement costs.

Obama started with a history lesson. As the Tea Party harks back to 19th century conceptions of limited government, he reminded Americans that the nation’s progress since then has been built upon a pragmatic synthesis of free enterprise and progressive governance. The extent of public activism required to create optimal conditions for shared prosperity is always a legitimate matter of debate, but the basic need for it shouldn’t be.

By insisting that deficit reduction leave room for strategic public investments in scientific research, modern infrastructure and education, Obama underscored a vital distinction that was being lost in the scramble to cut government spending: Reducing budget deficits is integral to reviving America’s economic dynamism. For most Americans, the priority is to get our economy moving again, not shrink government.

Obama also pushed back hard against Rep. Paul Ryan’s delusional budget, which asserts that the America’s path back to fiscal responsibility entails 100 percent spending cuts and 0 percent tax increases. In endorsing (finally!) his own fiscal commission’s plan, the president has set up a clear choice between the GOP’s fanatical devotion to shielding the rich from higher taxes and a bipartisan approach that exempts no one from sacrifice.

The president’s confident rejection of GOP tax dogma left House GOP Whip Eric Cantor sputtering. He was reduced to repeating the ridiculous Republican mantra that asking the wealthy to pay higher taxes is tantamount to killing America’s small businesses. Please Eric, bring it on: this is a debate progressives can win.

But Obama can’t just win debates. He needs to preside over passage of a comprehensive deficit-reduction package that, in a divided government, can only be achieved on a bipartisan basis. If he wants moderate Republicans to play on raising revenues – and a few intrepid souls like Sens. Tom Coburn and Saxby Chambliss have begun to do – he is going to have to convince Democrats to play on entitlement reform.

Here his speech fell short. Clearly mindful of President Clinton’s success in rallying the pubic behind his plans to protect Medicare and Medicaid during the 1995-96 budget battle, Obama categorically ruled out structural changes in how government finances those programs. That could prove to be a mistake.

It’s one thing for Democrats to reject the size of Ryan’s proposed cuts in the big public health care programs. But for both substantive and tactical reasons, they shouldn’t reject out of hand innovative devises to constrain entitlement costs.

It’s 2011, not 1996, and the baby boom retirement is underway, not over the horizon. This demographic surge, combined with health care costs that have been rising for decades faster than the economy has grown, are the real drivers of America’s debt crisis. To put a governor on the engine of federal health care spending, Ryan has proposed moving Medicare to a premium support model, and turning Medicaid into a federal block grant.

In his speech, Obama endorsed an alternative: strengthening provisions in his health reform bill to slow the unsustainable rate of health care cost growth. These provisions would encourage health providers to shift from fee-for-service to fixed fees for bundled services or capitated payments, which reward the value rather than volume of care delivered. These and other Obamacare provisions, including the independent commission set up to explore efficiencies in Medicare, are all good ideas. But even if they work, it will take a very long time for them to reach the scale necessary to break the back of medical inflation.

In the meantime, we need to protect public budgets from surging health care costs that threaten to soak up every dollar of revenue raised by 2040. If premium support and block grants are ruled out – even though some prominent liberals and Democrats have long supported one or the other — progressives need to come up with an alternative.

The political “grand bargain” Obama must strike couldn’t be clearer. It’s embedded in the fiscal commission plan: GOP support for raising revenues in return for Democratic support for constraining public health care and retirement costs. As the political action now shifts to the Senate, Obama needs to challenge his own party too.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fiscal Responsibility | No Comments »

As Obama Prepares to Speak, PPI Hosts Tax Reform Forum

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
Lee Drutman


Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Lee Drutman

Today, President Obama is speaking on long-term deficit reduction. He’s expected to embrace the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s general framework (also known as Bowles-Simpson).

Yesterday, the Progressive Policy Institute joined forces with the Moment of Truth Project to host an event to discuss what comprehensive tax reform should look like, and what it will take to get it passed. (Moment of Truth was formed by Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Sen. Alan Simpson to build momentum behind the commission’s deficit reduction plan.)

Yesterday’s event, at Johns Hopkins University, helped build the momentum for reform. There was wide consensus that tax reform will need to be bipartisan and comprehensive, and will need to scale back most of the $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are at the heart of the “modified zero plan,” which would eliminate or scale them back, and use the savings to cut individual and corporate tax rates, as well as budget deficits.

Coinciding with the event, PPI released a policy memo on the modified zero plan, written by PPI Senior Fellow Paul Weinstein  and Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, and both formerly of the Commission. Both were on hand.

Yesterday’s forum event featured three Senators who have been leading the charge for reform – Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.) – and one CEO and Fiscal Commission member, Dave Cote (CEO of Honeywell). They provided the big picture framing, so I’ll summarize the highlights of their remarks first, and then delve into the two panels of experts second.

Sen. Bennet kicked off the event with stories from the town halls he’d been spending the last two years doing: “In every single meeting, debt and deficit came up,” he said. “There’s a deep skepticism that if we can’t figure out how to pay our bills, it suggests a lack of confidence in our government and our elected leaders, and it’s fairly well-placed.”

Bennet offered three criteria for what a deficit reduction plan would have to accomplish to pass muster with voters. First, it would need to be comprehensive. “People know we can’t fix this overnight, but they want it to be comprehensive.”; Second, sacrifice has to be shared: “They want to know that we’re in this together, and everybody has a share of the burden.”; Third, it has to be bipartisan.

Coats laid out a similar series of principles for the legislation that he has introduced with Senator Wyden. First, he said, echoing Bennet, it has to be bipartisan. Second, it has to be revenue neutral. Third it has to be simple (“Right now we’ve got 71,000 plus pages of tax code, 10,000 plus special preferences and deductions. It’s a nightmare.) Fourth, it has to help out the middle class, and help families to save money for college, and help charitable organizations. And fifth and finally, “this has to be based on a principle of growth…the bottom line is it has to lead to jobs.”

Wyden looked at the problem through the lens of tax simplification, noting that as April 15 approaches, “Americans are going through the 6 billion hours they spend each year filling out tax forms — 690,000 years is what you have in an annual effort going through the water torture of figuring out if line 9 is modifying line 7.”

Wyden also stressed that any tax reform also needed to encourage investment in what he called “red-white-and-blue jobs” – that is, solid American jobs, preferably in manufacturing.  Wyden called his bill fundamentally a jobs bill.

Cote, CEO of Honeywell, echoed similar themes in his remarks. “We need a global competitiveness agenda for the U.S.” he began. “Our corporate tax system is globally uncompetitive. We have the highest tax rate in the world, and we’re the only major country with a territorial system that encourages companies to keep their cash overseas. And we give back $1.2 trillion in what is euphemistically named ‘tax expenditures,’ but just another form of spending that’s done through the tax code.”

Echoing the urgency of the Senators, Cote posed the looming crisis this way: “The debt problem can get resolved one of two ways. We can do it now and do it thoughtfully, or the bond market can force us t do it, like Greece and Portugal.”

Moving to the policy substance, the first panel featured Paul Weinstein, PPI Senior Fellow, Diane Rogers of the Concord Coalition, Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute, and Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center as moderator

Weinstein gave the quick version and backstory of the “modified zero plan,” which is the subject of a new PPI memo Weinstein co-authored. As the name might suggest, it began as the “zero plan,” which was the name the deficit commission gave the plan that reduced all tax expenditures to zero, saving $1.1 trillion in deductions, credits, and deferrals. The “modified zero plan” put back in only a few consensus tax expenditures, like the EITC, a mortgage deduction, a charitable contribution deduction.

“The rates are lower, it simplifies the tax code to fewer incentives and helps reduce tax avoidance and mistakes,” explained Weinstein. “Obviously the revenue increases get bigger and bigger over time. We estimate $800 billion over ten years.”

Rogers responded favorably to the plan. “I like the approach. There’s something for everyone to love,” she said. “Liberals should like it because it’s progressive and better than having to cut direct spending. Conservatives should like it because it’s an economically efficient way to raise revenues, and it doesn’t raise the size of government. It reduces the size of government.”

Viard gave it two cheers. He called it “Well-specified and thoughtful. This is one of the best approaches you can have with an income-based tax system that includes a separate corporate income tax.” Viard’s stated preference was for a value-added tax (VAT), though the subsequent discussion highlighted how difficult the politics of transitioning to a VAT would be. (Rogers put it this way: “we should work within the existing system first.”)

As the discussion shifted into the politics of policy, there was general agreement that tax reform terminology is confusing to the general public, and any discussion of tax expenditures is going to lead to thousands of interest groups begging to keep their favorites. And again, there was agreement that it needs to be comprehensive. “Tax reform can’t be done unless it’s in the context of deficit reduction,” said Weinstein. “You need to look at the whole apple.”

The second panel featured Leonard Burman of Syracuse University, Marc Goldwein, of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Joseph Minarik of the Committee for Economic Development and Derek Thompson of The Atlantic as moderator.

Goldwein began by reiterating the consensus: “The current income tax code is a mess. There is a consensus to broaden the base, and reduce the rates, and don’t keep tax expenditures that aren’t worth their cost.”

But how to do that? Burman argued that ending tax expenditures would require not referring to them anymore as tax expenditures. “We need to change the fiscal language. I sometimes call them IRS pork,” he said. “Part of the problem is mischaracterizing tax expenditures. Some people think that by putting new tax expenditures in the code you’re making government smaller, but what you’re doing is just spending more money and making taxes higher to achieve a given level of revenue.”

Minarik, a grizzled veteran of tax fights, highlighted the fact that the inside-the-halls negotiating in Congress is very different from the “outside” formulating that goes on at events like this, and reminded everyone that the simpler the solution, the easier it will be to pass. In that respect, he said, a fifth-best solution that’s simple and straightforward is better than a second-best solution that can lead to more complicated politics.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fiscal Responsibility | 1 Comment »

PPI EVENT: Tax Reform Now

Monday, April 11th, 2011
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

With April 15 just around the corner, PPI and Moment of Truth, and a bipartisan cast of U.S. Senators, are joining forces to call for the most sweeping overhaul of federal taxes since 1986.

Moment of Truth was formed by Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Sen. Alan Simpson to build momentum behind the commission’s deficit reduction plan. At the heart of that plan is the “modified zero plan,” which would eliminate or scale back tax expenditures, and use the savings to cut individual and corporate tax rates, as well as budget deficits.

In addition to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a leading voice for restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Daniel Coats (R-Ind.) will be on hand to discuss their new bill, which would also close tax loopholes to finance lower rates and deficits.

Both approaches embrace the “broaden the tax base, bring down tax rates” logic of the last great tax reform in 1986. PPI also will release a new report by Paul Weinstein, a key architect of the “modified zero plan,” on how the plan sparked a bipartisan breakthrough on the commission, and on how the plan could be further refined and strengthened.

The April 12 forum, to be held at Johns Hopkins University’s Washington campus, will also feature prominent budget and tax experts. Click here to see the whole program and RSVP.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Why Grumbling About GE’s Taxes Misses the Point

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011
Robert Atkinson


Dr. Robert D. Atkinson is the founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and the author of The Past and Future of America’s Economy: Long Waves of Innovation That Power Cycles of Growth (Edward Elgar, 2005).

by Robert Atkinson

Recent reports of GE’s artful dodge of U.S. income tax liability are the perfect curtain raisers for the annual tax filing ritual.  Yet another example of the injustice of our tax code!  Time for a flat tax!  No more loopholes for fat cats!  Put aside GE’s tax lawyers’ interpretation of the tax code.  What is more important than the furor over the story is that it represents yet another missed opportunity for a rational debate and another lost chance to design tax policies to spur innovation, global competitiveness, and growth.

When it comes to tax policy, the left usually lumps the rich and corporations together as villains who should pay up.  They argue the tax code is not progressive enough and one way to make it so is to go after the plutocratic moneyed interests.

Inadvertently, the left makes a legitimate point lumping wealthy individuals and corporations together. But it is not because corporations and wealthy individuals are two distinct entities with common traits.  Rather it is because a corporation is individual people – some rich, some poor.  A corporation is a legal construct but it actually an amalgamation of employees and shareholders bonded by a desire to take in more than what is spent producing whatever it provides to the market.  When corporations benefit from tax cuts, guess who benefits.  It is not a data file sitting in some computer in Delaware but investors, employees, and consumers.

As for progressivity, the left also makes a fair point as we have seen income disparity widen in the last 30 years.  But we aren’t going to close income gaps by going after corporations.  Rather we need to abolish the tax cuts on individual dividend payments instituted almost a decade and raise the top marginal rates on individual income to mid-1990s levels.  But don’t shake down corporations.  In today’s globalized, highly-competitive market, we can ill afford to raise money from companies facing competitors whose countries are cutting, not raising, corporate taxes.

The U.S. now has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates of any OECD company.  In other words, not only is the rate U.S. corporations pay (on average 39 percent) high, but the actual rate they pay after deductions and credit is also extremely high, notwithstanding some individual companies who may not pay much in any particular year. The high corporate tax rate is not making our companies stronger and inducing domestic investment.  Quite the opposite.

Meanwhile, many of those on the right and in the center have an almost messianic devotion to the notion of broadening the tax base and lowering rates by getting rid of a host of deductions, credits, and exemptions.  For them, simplicity is the golden rule.  They want to tax every company and every activity the same way.   But as philosopher Alfred North Whitehead stated, “seek simplicity but distrust it.”

There’s a simple reason not to treat everything companies do the same: the impacts on jobs and growth are not the same.  That’s why, for example, virtually every academic study on the issue finds that giving companies a tax credit for research and development they do here in the United States is good effective policy.  It’s the same for tax credits for investment in new capital equipment and software.  There’s also a good reason not to treat all industries the same.

The simple fact is that industries like grocery stores, electric utilities and car dealers do not compete globally while industries like steel, pharmaceuticals, and electronics do.  While the former provide needed services if we raise their taxes they are not going to build fewer grocery stores, electric wires, or car dealerships.   But if we raise the taxes of steel companies, drug companies and electronics companies they will do the rational thing that any company would do: move production to the nations that tax them less.  Currently, the former industries pay significantly higher effective tax rates than the last three.  And that is exactly how it should be.  This is why many state’s tax code favors manufacturing and high tech firms.  It’s why most countries’ tax code does the same thing.   They realize that jobs depend on the health of their companies that are in competition with firms outside their borders.

So, as you get ready to file your taxes, don’t grumble about GE.  Turn your anger toward a polarized, irrational, and tired debate in Washington that is aimed at leveraging votes instead of creating the kind of innovative, productive, and globally competitive economic activity that American workers so desperately need.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Men’s Earnings Have NOT Declined by 28 Percent Since 1969!

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
Scott Winship


Scott Winship is research manager of the Pew Economic Mobility Project and a recent graduate of Harvard's doctoral program in social policy. The views he expresses do not represent those of Pew.

by Scott Winship

Tyler Cowen, of whom I’m generally a big fan, summarizes an interesting post by Michael Mandel on recent productivity growth (the lack thereof).  But he ends by trumpeting Hamilton Project analyses claiming to show that men’s earnings declined by 28 percent between 1969 and 2009.  This claim, like the Mandel analyses, reinforces Cowen’s argument that we are in a Great Stagnation, but it’s not true!  Stop this meme!

I’ve not had much time to blog recently, so I submitted a brief critique in the comments to the Leonhardt post that introduced the world to this unfortunate study (co-authored, unfortunately, by a fellow classmate of mine from Harvard’s inequality program) and in the comments to the Hamilton post.  Here’s the basic problem: the analyses assign all nonworking men annual earnings of $0, and since labor force participation among men has declined, the result is a big drop in median earnings over time.  But a lot of that decline in labor force participation is attributable to earlier retirement (they include men as old as 64), later and longer school enrollment (they include men as young as 25), rising “disability” rates (which do not correspond in any obvious way with changes in health or job demands but which do correspond with increasing generosity in disability benefits), and other factors having nothing to do with the strength of labor markets.

I re-crunched the numbers as follows.  I included all men age 20 to 59 except for those who said they worked only part of the year or not at all because they were retired, going to school, in the Armed Forces, sick or disabled, or taking care of home and family.  Using the inflation adjustment that the Hamilton guys likely used, I find a decline in median earnings of 9 percent, not 28.

Note, however, that comparing 1969 and 2009 holds up a likely peak year (when the business cycle was at a high) to a trough year (when it was at a low).  Comparing 1969 to 2007 is apples-to-apples, and when I did that, the median was EXACTLY the same in both years (to the dollar, which is a pretty crazy coincidence).  Finally, if I use the Bureau of Economic Analysis “personal consumption expenditures” deflator, which I think overstates inflation somewhat less than other commonly-used deflators, median earnings among men rose 7 percent from 1969 to 2007.

Seven percent is no great shakes, but this figure is also too small for assessing how men’s economic fortunes have changed over time.  None of these analyses account for the fact that as a group, husbands reduced their hours over time in response to rising work and wages among wives.  Nor do they account for the rising share of non-wage benefits in total compensation (health and retirement benefits have eaten into wages, presumably following the preferences of the median worker).  Nor do they include the impact of taxes (which have declined) and tax credits (which have increased).  In addition, even my figures may overstate inflation, thereby understating the earnings increase over time–inflation measurement is much more tricky when choices within categories of goods and services and retail outlets explodes and when so much of what we consume is (thanks to the inter-web .  Finally, the analyses do not account for changes in the composition of the population.  For instance, the fact that more men today are nonwhite and foreign-born pushes the 2009 median down, but it is likely that the typical white, nonwhite, native-born, and foreign-born men are all doing better than the trend in the overall median implies.  Someday I’ll get to a full analysis.

Subject for discussion (and a future post): how are we as a nation supposed to clearly understand the state of the economy and our living standards when even moderate think tanks and researchers are so eager to hype negativity?  As I’ve said before, policymakers aren’t the only people who–individually or collectively–can talk down the economy.

Crossposted at The Empiricist Strikes Back

Tags: , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

Kerry Builds A New Road To Infrastructure Bank

Tuesday, March 15th, 2011
Scott Thomasson


Scott Thomasson is the economic and domestic policy director for the Progressive Policy Institute. Follow @st_ppi

by Scott Thomasson

Showing the kind of bipartisan leadership that has become all too rare these days, Senators John Kerry and Kay Bailey Hutchison have announced a new proposal to improve the way we fund infrastructure and unlock hundreds of billions in much-needed financing for new projects across the country. Their bill has one of those great acronym-friendly names that congressional staff labor to perfect: The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act of 2011, or for short: The BUILD Act.

Kerry and Hutchison announced the BUILD Act today in a packed Senate hearing room, flanked by the heads of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, who both endorsed the proposal and spoke about the shared need that business and labor have for Washington to move beyond its political dysfunction to address the urgent needs for building and maintaining the backbone of our economy and help create jobs. Senator Mark Warner is as an original co-sponsor of the bill and also joined the press conference. Senator Warner issued a similar warning that he delivered at PPI’s infrastructure conference last fall, explaining that we must reverse the decline in U.S. infrastructure investment to make our country a more competitive place for attracting capital investment and jobs in the global economy.

The BUILD Act represents an entirely new approach to the idea of creating a National Infrastructure Bank, one that goes a long way to reconcile the huge levels of needed investment with the very real spending constraints facing the current Congress. Given the realities of the current political environment, their proposal launches the bank on a fiscally responsible scale, while preserving the best principles of political independence and economics-based decision making that make the bank worth doing in the first place. They do this by structuring their bank as a financing authority under the Federal Credit Reform Act, a model used by the U.S. Export-Import Bank and other existing federal lending entities, that allows the bank to shift enough lending risk to borrowers to keep the burden on the government and taxpayers low, which avoids the large capital requirements of traditional infrastructure bank proposals.

By combining a smart financing structure with a 50% cap on the federal share of any project’s total funding, the BUILD Act avoids the high price tag that other infrastructure financing bills often carry. That makes it an innovative approach that needs to be a part of the upcoming debates on the already underfunded transportation bill. As Chamber President Tom Donohue said today, it’s an invaluable part of the solution to how we pay for maintenance and improvements that we can’t afford to ignore, but it can only work if added to a strong foundation of spending in the transportation bill, which he said will also require increasing our 17 year-old gas tax, to meet our current needs and adjust to lower fuel consumption by more efficient vehicles.

PPI has long supported the idea of a National Infrastructure Bank, including the current House bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the long-time champion for infrastructure in Congress. DeLauro joined other top political, business, and labor leaders to discuss the bank proposal at our infrastructure conference last fall. Economist and infrastructure heavyweight Ev Ehrlich released an excellent paper at that conference laying out some of the key benefits to the bank approach. The experts who participated in that conference agreed that there were many approaches to structuring a bank that would be acceptable and achieve the benefits Ehrlich described, with the caveat that we could not afford to abandon the principles of independence and project selection based on economics, not political logrolling. Senators Kerry and Hutchison have managed to apply those principles in crafting a workable proposal during this time of fiscal austerity, and we at PPI applaud them for their resourcefulness and leadership.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries