William O’Keefe for Economic Policies for the 21st Century: When created in 1977, the Department of Energy was given the responsibility for “the design, constructing and testing of nuclear weapons, and … a loosely knit amalgamation of energy-related programs scattered throughout the federal government.”
Prior to the creation of the Energy Department, the federal government played a limited role in energy policy and development. Presumed scarcity, excessive dependence on the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, distrust in markets and the search for energy independence became the foundation for what is now a $32.5 billion bureaucracy in search of relevance. A series of energy policies have done little to contribute to the abundance of affordable energy that fuels a growing economy.
What the Energy Department has done is squander money on the search for alternative energy sources. In the process, it enabled bootlegger and Baptist schemes that enriched crony capitalists who are all too willing to support the flawed notion that government can pick winners and losers. For 2017, a large chunk of the department’s spending — $12.6 billion, or 39 percent — is earmarked to “support the president’s strategy to combat climate change.” That is not a justifiable use of taxpayer dollars.
Over 36 years, the department’s mission has morphed from energy security to industrial policy, disguised as advanced energy research and innovation …
Abolishing the Energy Department would punish only the crony capitalists who have become addicted to its support.
Don’t forget single moms at college
Lara Burt for the New America Foundation: Movies and television shows have a certain narrative for the “typical” American college student — the 18-year-old who is dropped off at a picturesque campus by his or her parents, moving into the dorms, ready to spend the next four years of their lives fully submerged in campus life.
In reality, America’s postsecondary student population is more diverse than ever and most students have little in common with this character portrayed by the media. For one, 4.8 million college students are raising children in the United States. That is one-quarter of all undergraduates — including 30 percent of those in community college. Of these students, 43 percent are single mothers.
Balancing family life, being a parent and focusing on school work is extremely difficult, especially for those without the support of a spouse or partner. For many, the odds of finishing a degree seem insurmountable. According to a new report from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, student parents drop out of college at a higher rate than any other demographic, as only 33 percent of these students obtain a degree within six years. …
So what can we do to support these parents? There is evidence that student parents are more likely to stay in school and to graduate when they have access to child care on campus. And yet, the report shows that students rarely have access. In fact, in the last decade the trend has been going in the opposite direction — campus child care centers have been closing across the country.
Trump’s business guy gets it wrong on the Pacific trade deal
Jeffrey Schott for the Peterson Institute for International Economics: Wilbur Ross, President-elect Trump’s pick for commerce secretary, cites two specific reasons why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad deal: U.S. officials gave too many concessions, and the TPP’s rules of origin for autos allow China and others to free ride on access to the U.S. market. On both points, he has it backward.
On the first point, Ross argues that the United States paid too much because each of the 11 TPP partners demanded something different and additional to what was offered to the others. He believes that one-on-one talks would avoid such cascading demands for more and more U.S. concessions. But that’s not how it works.
In fact, U.S. concessions in the trade deal were limited. The U.S. already is largely open to foreign suppliers from all member countries of the World Trade Organization, and U.S. negotiators did not commit to many significant changes in existing U.S. practices and protection. And where we maintain barriers, we grudgingly committed to small or partial reforms. We even postponed cutting the 2.5 percent U.S. auto tariff for 25 years.
At the same time, U.S. officials achieved in the TPP substantial openings of long-protected Asian markets. Sounds like a favorable deal. In fact, it’s even better. We got “paid” twice by our TPP partners. Not only did we get “paid” in terms of reciprocal concessions in each of the 11 markets, but we also got a bonus payment from many of those countries in terms of more of what we wanted from them in market access and support for new investment and intellectual property rules for helping them get better access via the TPP to the Japanese, Vietnamese and other markets than they would otherwise have been able to get on a bilateral basis. So negotiating the regional TPP produced larger U.S. gains with fewer U.S. concessions.
The second point on auto rules of origin seems convincing until you look at the facts. Rules of origin set criteria for qualifying for preferential tariff treatment under the TPP and other free trade pacts. If the product doesn’t qualify, it pays the most-favored nation tariff like other WTO countries. The U.S. most-favored nation auto tariff is 2.5 percent and, under the TPP, the United States does not give a tariff preference for 25 years. As a practical matter, U.S. auto imports are excluded from the TPP. Yes, some U.S. auto parts tariffs are a little higher and phased out sooner, but Ross focused on Chinese parts in Japanese and other exports to the United States — and that’s not a significant problem since the trade can continue relatively unimpeded simply by paying the most-favored nation tariffs.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
