Ryan Bhandari for Third Way: In building a second headquarters, Amazon is in a unique position to expand the opportunity to earn for residents of a struggling metro area. It would be a mistake to just think about Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, and the other metro areas where the economy is booming and Amazon’s marginal impact would be moderate.
Why not pick a city that really needs help? A number of struggling metro areas are close to an international airport and have 1 million residents. … Why not consider Cleveland, or Milwaukee, Wis., or Norfolk, Va., or Hartford, Conn., or Providence, R.I., or Memphis, Tenn.? In a place like New York or San Francisco, you’ll be a big fish in huge pond. But in one of these cities, you have the opportunity to build the pond, potentially catalyzing a whole new tech hub in a city that truly needs it. …
It’s understandable that Amazon wants an incentive package for its new headquarters. Other big companies are privy to these breaks, so why shouldn’t Amazon be, too? But hopefully, Amazon doesn’t need to base its decision on the size of the tax break a city offers. It has an opportunity to settle in a struggling metropolitan area where it can change the lives of tens of thousands of Americans who have been left behind in the new economy and are desperate for an opportunity to earn.
The danger zones
Clay Fuller for the American Enterprise Institute: The United States has 276 active foreign trade zones strategically located in high-traffic areas. Zones are geographically delineated areas that attract business through lower taxes, streamlined procedures, and light regulation. In less-developed countries, zones frequently devolve into cowboy-capitalist criminal and terrorist havens. In more-developed autocracies, they often produce counterfeiters, money launderers, and intellectual property thieves. In 2008, 149 Americans died from Chinese fake drugs likely imported through a foreign trade zone, and the current epidemic of the synthetic opioid fentanyl is likely also connected to the zones. They need more oversight. …
It makes sense to like the idea of foreign trade zones. Lower taxes, less regulation, streamlined procedures — in other words, get government out of the way and markets will flourish. This type of open-door economic policy works perfectly in domestic democratic capitalist economies governed by strong universal property rights and enforcement mechanisms. However, when the door is open to the world, plenty of good business comes in, but bad actors find their way in as well. It’s like opening a window without a screen on it. A lot of beneficial fresh air comes in, but pesky mosquitoes make their way in, too, causing potential system-wide sickness. The U.S. needs a new screen on her window. Empower Customs and Border Protection with the tools necessary to properly defend our ports and our economy.
One man, one democracy voucher
Allie Boldt for Demos: In 2015, by a 26-point margin, Seattle voters passed an initiative that has the potential to transform Seattle elections. The initiative established a first-in-the-nation program that gives Seattle residents $100 in “democracy vouchers,” which they can distribute to candidates who pledge to receive more of their funding from small-dollar sources and less from big money.
This is the first year of elections under the program, and it has already expanded political opportunity in Seattle. More than 11,000 Seattle residents have already made voucher contributions to City Council candidates — compared to just 6,900 private donors who contributed to the mayoral election (which is not yet covered by the program) in the same period. For some Seattle residents, the democracy vouchers are game-changing: the difference between participating as a donor and not.
Despite the program’s apparent popularity, it now faces a misguided legal challenge by two property taxpayers represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, who say the program violates their First Amendment rights. They argue the program discriminates against taxpayers on the basis of their viewpoints because under the program, the candidate or candidates that a property taxpayer supports might not receive as much public funding as candidates with more popular support.
This understanding of the First Amendment could not be more wrong. …
As the brief explains, the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect free speech for us to be free to govern ourselves in our democracy. Democracy demands that a person’s ideas are no more or less important simply because she is rich or poor.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
