The Case for Evidence in Government – Doug Criscitello

Doug Criscitello, Executive Director of MIT’s Center for Finance and Policy

Doug Criscitello, Executive Director of MIT’s Center for Finance and Policy

From Government Executive

Although the U.S. government presides over what collectively must be one of the world’s largest data repositories, its capacity to use that data to build citizen trust and make informed, evidence-based decisions is severely constrained. As explained in an enlightening report recently issued by the bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (CEP), the mere existence of data is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating empirical evidence to inform decisions throughout the full lifecycle of public programs—enactment, funding, operation, reform, termination.

The digitization of many facets of various activities the government funds through its $4 trillion annual budget has resulted in a data explosion at federal agencies. But that data needs to be synthesized into actionable information to satisfy taxpayers’ demands for better results and greater transparency. The CEP report makes clear that much remains to be done to achieve that goal and provides a comprehensive plan to improve access to federal data, strengthen privacy protections and expand the public, private and academic research communities’ capacity to analyze data.

CEP provides an insightful list of recommendations such as establishing a National Secure Data Service to enable and leverage capabilities across government, addressing statutory impediments that obstruct smart data use, and streamlining processes used to grant researchers access to data. The report appropriately emphasizes strong privacy protections and advocates for comprehensive risk assessments for publicly released data and for the use of better technology and greater coordination across government. To prioritize efficient evidence building, CEP points out the need to coordinate statistical activities, evaluation and policy research within and between departments and across levels of government.

Read More »

How this MIT Sloan MBA is harnessing the new dominant force in politics—Millennials – Dan Kessler

Dan Jordan Kessler, MBA ’19.

From BusinessBecause 

America has been to the polls for the first time since Donald Trump was elected in 2016. And more than anything, the races were a testing ground for the 2018-midterm elections and the presidential race to follow in 2020.

In that election in 2020, for the first time ever, Millennials will make up the largest segment of the American electorate with 91 million Millennials composing roughly 35 percent of the voting population.

As a result, in just two years, Millennials will be poised to become a dominant force in politics—a force that can be harnessed effectively and decisively. Therefore, the time has come for campaigns to redirect their focus away from their long-standing focus on baby boomers and engage Millennials in a meaningful and lasting way.

Right now, Millennials are fairly likely to be disengaged with the political process. With the average age of members of Congress at 58-years-old and Congressional leadership in their late 60s and 70s, Millennials, who seek social impact, simply feel as if they cannot relate to government across this generational divide.

Only 32 percent of millennials report that they feel that “people like them” have a legitimate voice in the election,” according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Read More »

The GOP plan to turn students into Trump voters – Michael Whinston

MIT Sloan Fellows Professor of Management  Michael Whinston

From Boston Review

Much has been written about who the likely “winners” and “losers” are if the Republican-controlled Congress is able to pass a version of its tax bill. The middle class: losers; the wealthy, who own nearly all of the stock in U.S. corporations that isn’t owned by foreigners: winners. Those whose income comes from wage earnings: losers; those whose income comes from “passive” ownership of businesses: winners.

It has even been suggested that several geographic distinctions in the legislation may be “payback” for how California, New York, and other coastal blue states voted in the 2016 election. Taxpayers in high local and property tax states such as California and New York, for example, are losers in the GOP plans while Texans and others in low-tax “Red” states are winners.

If that seems like an overly sensitive reading, consider this: under the GOP plans, the ability to deduct personal casualty losses from wildfires and earthquakes would be phased out. The deduction for damage from hurricanes and floods, however, would be kept. As California State Senator Mike McGuire, a Democrat whose district includes areas ravaged by wildfires, told the New York Times, “. . .it’s hard not to think that Congress has their sights set on the Golden State.”

But the aims of this legislation are more politically ambitious than mere retribution, and nowhere is this more evident than in the House bill’s assault on higher education. If enacted, three provisions promise to have a devastating effect on college students, graduate students, and higher-education institutions. First, the House bill eliminates the deductibility of interest payments on student loans—a deduction that more than 12 million people used in 2015, according to the New York Times. Next, it taxes the tuition grants given to graduate students, grants that enable them to forego entering the workforce and instead pursue a Masters degree or PhD. As a result, a typical graduate student on a $20,000 stipend and a tuition waiver could end up owing nearly $10,000 in additional tax. And finally, it taxes the endowment investment income of roughly seventy universities and liberal arts colleges, reducing the funds available for undergraduate and graduate scholarships.

While these changes will help offset the massive tax reductions for the rich, they are a pretty small drop in the bucket towards that goal. And it is strange that pro-growth and pro-investment Republicans would sign off on something that so harms those who want to invest in human capital. So why then did the House pass this bill? The answer can be found by looking at the 2016 election results. Read More »

Why the Trump tax plan’s fuzzy math​ doesn’t add up – Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

From MarketWatch

Senate Republicans last week agreed on a budget resolution allowing a $1.5 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the next 10 years from tax legislation. This resolution paves the way for 51 Republican Senators to enact mammoth tax cuts by September 30, 2018.

Let’s be clear: these are tax cuts, despite their tax reform rhetoric.

As the centerpiece of these tax cuts, President Donald Trump has proposed to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%. However, despite the deficit cushion of $1.5 trillion allowed by last week’s budget resolution, a 15% rate is totally unrealistic.

Cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% would cost the U.S. Treasury $3.7 trillion over 10 years. But that cost cannot come close to being offset by repealing existing tax preferences, which all will be fiercely defended by special interests. A realistic legislative target would be a corporate tax rate of 25%. And under Senate rules this rate would have to expire after 10 years because it creates future budget deficits.

Let’s do the math on corporate and individual rates, together with optimistic assumptions about limiting existing tax preferences. The numbers are based on dynamic estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, unless noted otherwise.

Read More »

Financial regulation calls for 20/20 vision – Antonio Weiss and Simon Johnson

MIT Sloan Professor Simon Johnson

Harvard Kennedy School Senior Fellow Antonio Weiss

From Bloomberg

One of the central pillars of financial reform, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), is under political attack and at risk of coming undone.

In the past, the balkanized U.S. financial regulatory system has consistently failed to address risks that took root in its jurisdictional gaps. The FSOC was created to solve that problem, bringing regulators together to make sure they have the tools to protect the economy from financial crises. It is already making an important difference.

Unfortunately, earlier this month the House Financial Services Committee passed the Financial Choice Act (CHOICE Act), which threatens to reverse that progress. It would, for example, all but eliminate the FSOC’s ability to prevent the regrowth of an unsupervised shadow banking sector that might once again threaten our financial stability and economic resiliency. At the same time, the administration of President Donald Trump has signaled that it may use the council to pursue deregulation, rather than its core mandate of financial stability, and to reverse or limit its ability to designate systemically important non-banks for enhanced supervision. Meanwhile, MetLife Inc., the largest U.S. life insurer, recently asked the courts to delay ruling on an appeal filed by the Obama administration seeking to reinstate the firm’s designation as a systemically important institution requiring prudential oversight by the Federal Reserve.  The Trump administration has agreed to put the appeal on hold.

Read More »