Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Will Employee Health Coverage End Up Like Employee Retirement Income?

A long time ago, companies shifted their employee retirement programs from defined benefit plans to self-managed defined contribution plans.

Employees no longer are guaranteed a defined benefit, that is, a pension, but are provided with a defined contribution -- they put in their own money and the company contributes matching funds up to a certain percentage.

Companies no longer bear the burden of making sure their employees have income after retirement.  Employees must manage their retirement accounts themselves -- typically choosing from an array of investment alternatives offered by their employer.

If the employee contributes enough and chooses the investments wisely, he or she may have enough for a comfortable retirement.  If not, well . . . .

We are beginning to see a similar move with employee health care coverage.

Companies long have provided employees with medical coverage.

We now are seeing a shift away from what may be loosely referred to as a "defined benefit insurance plan" -- where the company provides the benefit of coverage and pays most of the cost for employees -- to a "defined contribution insurance plan", where the company contributes a sum of money and requires the employee to purchase a plan directly from an insurer.

On October 1, the Affordable Care Act will begin providing public "exchanges" where various plans may be purchased.  Insurance and consulting companies already are setting up private "exchanges" doing the same thing.

Large companies should like the idea, as most are self-insured.  Requiring employees to buy their own coverage shifts the risk away from the company to the insurer, thus making the company's employee health care costs more predictable.

Is this the future?

Employees have accepted the shift away from guaranteed pensions to self-managed 401(k) plans.  Are we seeing the beginning of self-managed insurance benefit plans?

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Talking Points for Common Core State Standards

We have heard lots of talk about the Common Core State Standards.  And not all of the talk has been based on facts. 

The process for developing the new voluntary state standards was begun in 2009 by the National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Policymakers, parents and the business community supported the effort. 

But recently, as the Obama Administration has begun to promote the benefits of the state standards, some folks are expressing opposition.  Some even are saying the reading and math standards developed by the states somehow are a liberal plot to indoctrinate our youth!

Facts don't always matter to some people, but here are some talking points that may be useful.
  • Math is math.  Simply put, math is no different in Boise than in Boston.
  • Our American students will be competing for jobs with people from all over the world, and should have a solid understanding of math, as well as English Language Arts and other subjects.
  • The Common Core State Standards were developed by the states, not by the federal government.  The National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers organized and convened many meetings of state officials, who developed the standards.
  • The U.S. Department of Education had no role in creating the state standards, but is encouraging states to adopt them -- as 45 states and the District of Columbia have done -- in order to help students succeed.
  • The Common Core State Standards outline what to teach, not how to teach it.  States and local school districts develop their own curricula.
  • The Common Core State Standards are robust and relevant to today's world. 
  • Our students are our future.  The Common Core State Standards reflect what our students need to know in order to succeed in college and their careers.
I hope this helps.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Can Congress Pass Trade Promotion Authority?

This week, President Obama called on Congress to restore Trade Promotion Authority so America can negotiate the best trade deals.

Trade Promotion Authority is the process that provides for Congress to vote up-or-down on completed trade agreements without the opportunity for after-the-fact amendments in return for consultations with the Administration during the negotiations.

TPA was last renewed in 2002, and it expired in 2007.

Getting the best trade deals should be an easy bipartisan issue.  But the political parties tend to support TPA if someone from their party is President and oppose it if not.

Opponents will tell you that TPA isn't required for completing trade negotiations.  That's true, but it is required for making sure the U.S. gets the best deal.  Obviously, if our counter-parties know Congress can make further demands with amendments after the agreement is completed, they will hold something back and not give us the most favorable terms.

TPA will give U.S. negotiators a very useful tool for completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the new agreement with the European Union, both of which will provide significant benefits for U.S. workers, as the new agreements will open markets and enable us to sell more U.S. products and services overseas.

We already have seen partisan wrangling since the President asked for TPA.  We'll likely see lots of distractions and side issues with Congressional elections next year and the 2016 Presidential jockeying in full swing.

Bipartisanship is hard to find these days -- and poll after poll shows the people are tired of the bickering and sniping. 

Members of Congress can do themselves -- and American workers -- a great service by enacting Trade Promotion Authority.  With TPA, this and future Administrations can negotiate the best trade agreements possible so American workers, farmers, manufacturers and service providers can sell more products overseas and reap the benefits here at home.  

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Does ANYBODY Think the WTO's Doha Round Can be Completed?

If you ask, "What's the WTO's Doha Round?" you won't be alone.

Way back in 2001, following 9/11, the World Trade Organization launched the Doha Development Agenda to provide expanded economic opportunities for people in developing countries in part to counter some of the extremism that led to the 9/11 attacks.

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked.

It's hard enough to get all the WTO members to agree on anything.  Compounding that problem is the WTO's requirement that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.  WTO rules don't allow willing countries to put agreed-to issues into effect, enabling small groups to prevent progress.

Further compounding the problem is the fact that some countries who were viewed as "developing" back in 2001, are anything but that today.  Think India and China, both of which are now major economic powers.

The next WTO meeting of ministers for the Doha Round will be held in December in Bali.  Already, we are seeing the same pre-meeting signs.  Some folks are optimistic that this time will be the one.  Others are wringing their hands saying, "We have to find a way forward."  And this week the trade minister for India said if it doesn't get what it wants in the Doha Round, the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement negotiations may be in jeopardy. 

Is it time to just pull the plug and move on?

Ending the Doha Round would be a public relations defeat for the WTO.  But after twelve years of banging our heads against the wall, it's time to stop.

Currently, the WTO has two objectives: (1) complete agreements among its members to expand and facilitate trade among nations, and (2) resolve trade-related disputes among nations and enforce its global rules.

The WTO has a good record on resolving disputes, but it hasn't done well with the first objective. 

It has become clear that the WTO isn't needed when it comes to expanding trading opportunities.  Willing countries are completing agreements among themselves.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership will unite a dozen countries touching the Pacific Ocean into a powerful trading bloc.  Many other countries are negotiating bilateral agreements to boost sales. 

With new leadership at the WTO, it's time to reassess the basic mission.

If WTO is to remain a place for negotiating global trade-enhancing agreements, it must change its requirements for completing them so single countries or small groups cannot halt progress for all.

Otherwise, the WTO will become even less relevant for trade.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

I'm Always Optimistic; But Not For a 'No Child Left Behind' Update

As everyone involved with education policy knows, our education law, now in the form of No Child Left Behind, expired in 2007.  Its programs will continue as long as Congress keeps providing the money.

Much in education has changed since 2001 when NCLB was enacted.  Technology in classrooms today wasn't even invented back then.  Learning and teaching methods have improved.

Unfortunately, Members of Congress -- of all political persuasions -- have talked, but haven't acted.

I was optimistic several weeks ago when I heard about legislation actually being written in both the Senate and the House.

But then I saw the bills.  And then I heard the speeches and comments at the Committee hearings.

Our two political parties have grown further apart in the last six or eight years or so.  Ideological purity is demanded by vocal interest groups.  Compromise has become a dirty word.

The partisan discourse is so bad now, that some even are saying that the common standards developed by the states are a federal plot to control what is taught!

Just to be clear, let's look at two facts:

Fact #1: The common standards being implemented by the states were developed by the National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  (See the theme here? States.)

Fact #2: Math is the same in Columbia, MO, Columbia, MD, and Columbia, SC.  (Why should students in some states know less than students in other states?  Math is math wherever you are.)

So now, because of partisanship and the inability of policymakers to reach across the aisle, our kids suffer.

Our kids are missing out on the new adaptive technology that facilitates individualized instruction so they can move forward in areas they have mastered and get help where they need it. 

Our kids are missing out on new interactive materials and teaching methods.

Instead, they are stuck in a one-size-fits-all classroom, based primarily on their age, gearing up for a fill-in-the-bubble test at the end of the year.

Our students deserve better.

When they complete their secondary education -- whether in Columbia, MO, Columbia, MD or Columbia, SC -- they will be competing with students from all over the world, many of whom will have been using the latest technology and adapting as the education world changes.

We can do better as a nation.

I'm always optimistic.  But I must confess it's getting kinda tough when we're talking about updating our education law to promote student success.

The U.S. Department of Education got tired of waiting for Congress and began giving states money and flexibility in return for adopting preferred policies.  But they can go only so far -- and their program has ruffled some feathers on Capitol Hill and fed into the conspiracy theories.

What's the best way forward for our students?

Monday, June 10, 2013

Partisanship Preventing Progress on ESEA Re-Write

Three weeks ago I noted we were hearing positive signs from Capitol Hill about re-writing and updating our nation's education law -- the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now in the form of No Child Left Behind.

I was optimistic when Sen. Harkin introduced a bill.  As chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, he is in the prefect position to pass a significant and meaningful update to the law.

Unfortunately, no Republicans signed on in support.

Instead, Republicans in both the Senate and the House introduced their own bills, which are similar to each other.

And no Democrats signed on in support.

We now have Democrats talking about their bill and Republicans talking about their bills.

Unfortunately, they aren't talking to each other.

No Child Left Behind put a system of requirements into place in 2001.  Think of all the changes in education in the past 12 years -- particularly in technology and adaptive learning systems for individualized instruction to improve student performance.

We have heard plenty of talk about the need for updating and modernizing our education system.  It's time for Congress to act.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Good News for Progress on U.S. Trade Agenda

Mike Froman, the President's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, sailed through his Senate confirmation hearing this week.  Senators from both sides of the aisle said good things about him.

And Froman said good things about the outlook for the U.S. Trade Agenda. 

"If confirmed, I will engage with you to renew Trade Promotion Authority," Froman told the Senators, as reported by Doug Palmer in a Reuters story.  "TPA is a critical tool.  I look forward to working with you to craft a bill that achieves our shared goals."

Trade Promotion Authority is the process that provides for Congress to vote up-or-down on trade agreements with no opportunity for amendments in return for consultations with the Administration along the way during negotiations.

TPA isn't required for completing trade negotiations, but having it in place helps make sure the U.S. gets the best deal, as our counter-parties won't have to hold something back anticipating further demands from Congress.

TPA expired in 2007.  The Obama Administration didn't ask for its renewal during the first term, but now Froman is sending the right message.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said he wants introduce a bill soon and get it passed by Congress this year.

TPA will give U.S. negotiators a useful tool for completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the new agreement with the European Union, both of which will provide significant benefits for U.S. workers, as the new agreements will open markets and we will be able to sell more U.S. products and services overseas.

Mike Froman likely will be confirmed fairly quickly as U.S. Trade Representative.  We'll certainly look forward to working with him to renew Trade Promotion Authority.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Can Congress Update "No Child Left Behind?"

We have bipartisan agreement that No Child Left Behind -- our nation's education law -- needs updating.  Education has changed; technology has changed; testing has changed -- but the law hasn't.

George W. Bush signed NCLB into law in 2002, promising that schools and states would be held accountable for results.  Students would be tested in reading and math, and later in science, and parents would have options if schools failed to make sure all students were moving toward levels of proficiency.

NCLB expired in 2007, but has stayed in place as Congress has continued to fund its programs.

Occasionally over the years we have hard talk about reauthorizing and updating the law.  

But so far Congress hasn't acted -- no doubt because today's intense partisanship prevents compromise, and sometimes even prevents simple discussions of what policies should be.

A Glimmer of Hope?

Earlier this month, the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce said they want to re-write NCLB. 

Both are concerned that the Administration is doing what Congress apparently can't -- that is, updating and modifying NCLB's requirements through a series of administrative waivers of key provisions of the law. 

Essentially, the Administration is saying to the states, "Enact the reforms we want, and we will exempt you from some of the law's requirements." So far, 37 states have accepted the offer.

The waivers the Administration is granting are perfectly legal -- the law itself gives the Administration the authority.

Some within Congress are concerned about the scope of the waiver program, and the fact that so many states now are exempt from key accountability provisions of NCLB.

But can they do anything about it?  Can they stop the partisan posturing and work together?

Everyone agrees the law needs updating.  It's great that the leaders of the House Education Committee want to do it.  I take it as a glimmer of hope -- not just as deja vu

We all should support their efforts.  We should encourage them.  We should help them reach compromise on some of the more-contentious issues.  Our kids -- and our country -- need a top-quality education system that will focus on their learning and hold schools accountable for results.

No Child Left Behind's goals are as valid today as they were over a decade ago when the law was signed.  Congress should update the law to make it relevant for today -- and for tomorrow.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude

Most everybody knows Jimmy Buffett's song "Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude" where he talks about the joys of traveling and experiencing the world.

But not everybody shares that joy.

I met a man the other day who was quite proud of the fact that he never traveled outside his home state.  In fact, he rarely travels more than 25 miles from his Carolina home.

As someone who works on international trade policy, among other things, and as someone who has been fortunate enough to have traveled the world on business and for pleasure, I felt he was missing something good.

When I talked about other countries, as well as the rest of America, he said he didn't really trust much of anything outside his local area and he wasn't really interested in learning.

Looking at our conversation from a policy perspective (kinda weird, I know), I wanted to ask his views on trade.  I suspect if I had asked directly, his view would have been negative -- maybe he would have talked about outsourcing or China.

Instead, while talking about US-made goods and the Carolina textile mills shut down long ago, I asked if he thought US companies should be able to sell more of their products overseas.  He said, "Of course." 

I decided not to press the issue and point out that the inexpensive Asian-made t-shirt he was wearing would probably have cost him $25 or more if it had been made in one of now shuttered mills he spoke fondly of.  And I decided not to point out that many South Carolina workers were making more money at the BMW and Michelin plants than they ever made in the mills.

I just couldn't get Jimmy Buffett's song out of my head. 

My new friend is quite comfortable at home, and who am I to judge.  But in most cases I believe if people can change their latitude and see more of the world and its people -- either by traveling in person or via the internet or other media -- then we will see more demand for other countries' products and services and more sales of ours, and everyone will be a little better off.


Monday, March 4, 2013

South Carolina May Expand Access to Digital K12 Materials

The South Carolina Senate is looking at increasing access to digital instruction materials by enabling school districts to "purchase the digital equivalent of a textbook" as well as "support equipment" from vendors approved by the state.

Currently, South Carolina school districts request texts from a list approved by the State Board of Education.  Then, the Education Department buys the text and any digital licenses and loans them to the district.

A bill under consideration would provide some flexibility by allowing districts to buy or license materials not on the approved list.  The catch, of course, is that the districts would have to cover the expense themselves and couldn't rely on the state for funds to purchase any materials not on the approved list.

Teachers and superintendents generally favor the bill.  They want the flexibility as well as additional digital offerings. 

It's a start.

Digital instructional materials are more up to date and more in line with how kids learn.

Expanding access to high quality digital instructional materials can only help South Carolina students. 

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Key Senators Urge Trade Promotion Authority Renewal

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee urged renewal of Trade Promotion Authority in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

Their support, along with support from House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), should go a long way toward enactment of this important process.

As I've mentioned previously, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without any amendments.  This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't ask for more after the deal is completed.

TPA isn't a partisan issue.  It is a process necessary for negotiating the best agreements and actually getting them enacted so U.S. workers and farmers can benefit from increased sales of U.S. products and services overseas.

Every Member of Congress should support TPA.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

U.S. House Ways & Means to Look at Restoring Trade Promotion Authority

I predicted in my January 4 post that Congress would look at restoring Trade Promotion Authority this year.

Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) is making my prediction come true.  He listed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation as a top priority for the Trade Subcommittee in his letter to two other Committees outlining Ways & Means' plans, as required by House rules.

TPA enables an Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote without the possibility for amendments.  This makes sure we get the best deal as our counter-parties can be confident that Congress won't add additional requirements or ask for more after the deal is completed.

TPA, also known as "Fast Track," was last enacted in 2002 and expired in 2007.  The political issues surrounding it will be new to many Members of Congress and staff.

In years past, the party of the sitting President wanted TPA while the other party didn't want to grant it.  It didn't matter which party was in the White House.  The party that was in wanted it; the party that wasn't in didn't want to give it to the President.

TPA is a very important tool for actually enacting the trade agreements the U.S. negotiates with other nations.  Chairman Camp understands this.  He knows trade agreements help U.S. companies, workers and farmers sell more products and services overseas, which creates and supports jobs here at home.  He is looking down the road when the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements to boost economic growth and U.S. jobs will need to be approved by Congress.

Ever Member of Congress should support TPA.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Is There a Better Way Than the G20?

The G20 finance ministers are meeting in Moscow to look at economic growth issues. The G20 leaders will meet in St. Petersburg, Russia in September.

Does anyone outside a small circle even notice?

It's great that key officials from these major economies meet regularly, but can they accomplish much?

The global economy is inter-connected and inter-dependent, yet local politics and interests often water down what the G20 can do on a global basis.

Moises Naim has a good piece in the Financial Times noting that individual countries cannot tackle global issues alone, but their ability to work with others often is hampered locally.  We see this regularly when the G20 discusses policy issues.

I like Naim's suggestion of "minilateralism" as a way forward.

Naim suggests gathering the minimum number of countries necessary to affect positive change on a particular issue and have them develop a global solution.

We're seeing this with willing countries coming together to negotiate a major agreement to open markets for services, building on progress made during the WTO's failed Doha Round.

This approach also will work at the state and local level.

Yes, those who oppose change will attack Naim's "minilateralism" with complaints of elitism or exclusion.

My view: If you want to have a say in the solution, take a seat at the table instead of sitting on the sidelines and throwing stones.

Moises Naim is onto something.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

New US-EU Trade Deal Will Boost Growth, Jobs

In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced the launch of a new comprehensive trade, investment and regulatory cooperation agreement between the U.S. and the European Union.

The U.S. and the EU already have a good trading relationship.  Every day, goods and services worth $2.7 billion are traded between the U.S. and the EU. 

When completed, the new agreement will further boost two-way trade and investment and will create more jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

U.S. companies, workers and farmers will benefit.

With 95% of the world's population and 80% of the world's purchasing power outside U.S. borders, international trade and investment are more important than ever for America's continued prosperity.  American jobs are created and supported when American products and services are sold overseas.



Tuesday, January 22, 2013

South Carolina #1 in Attracting International Investment

South Carolina is ranked first in the U.S. in attracting international companies, boosting job opportunities in the state.

IBM-Plant Locations International -- which advises companies on where to locate -- tracks company announcements and ranks states on their success.  Its most recent rankings put South Carolina #1.

South Carolina Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt said,

“South Carolina is just right for business, and plenty of international companies know it. Hundreds of foreign firms employ tens of thousands of residents throughout our state, creating wealth and helping make the communities they’re in sustainable. The IBM-PLI report’s ranking is another confirmation that people are sitting up and taking notice of the economic development successes we’ve had here in the Palmetto State.”


Congratulations to South Carolina for forward thinking on foreign investment.






Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Advice for the Next WTO Director-General



Nine candidates are vying to succeed World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy when he retires this year.  As the next Director-General knows, the WTO does three things:

  • establishes and enforces global rules for trade among nations,
  • serves as an impartial forum for resolving disputes, and
  • facilitates negotiation of global trade agreements to boost economic growth.

The WTO is doing fine on the first two duties, but has failed on the third.

The WTO’s Doha Development Agenda is all but dead.  Why?

  • Perhaps it was doomed from the start by the WTO’s all-or-nothing approach where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed – enabling small groups of countries to prevent progress if they didn’t get what they wanted. 
  • Perhaps the world has changed in the dozen years since the Doha Round was launched and countries then seen as developing – such as China and India – now are global economic powers who no longer deserve “developing” status.
  • Perhaps the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, was the rise of bilateral and multilateral agreements among nations willing to more forward when the WTO couldn’t – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the potential new agreement between the United States and the European Union.

Willing countries are attempting to build on the progress made during the failed Doha Round and soon will launch negotiations toward a global services agreement and a global trade facilitation and customs agreement.  These agreements will call into question a fundamental WTO mission.

What should the WTO do?

We expect the new Director-General to continue to strengthen the WTO’s rulemaking and dispute resolution systems.  But what about trade?

One suggestion: Abandon the all-or-nothing requirement for progress on global trade deals. 

Allowing the majority of countries to agree on terms and move forward would be a good start.  Doing so with the next WTO agreement would help boost economic activity and would strengthen the WTO’s role as a global venue for enhancing trade.

Monday, January 7, 2013

State Legislatures' Education Focus: Funding, Standards, Security



State government is more polarized than ever.  Only 14 states have divided governments with the governor’s office and at least one branch of the legislature controlled by different parties.  And half the states have veto-proof majorities in their legislatures.  Bipartisan cooperation likely will be even tougher to reach.

A wide variety of legislation will be introduced.  We’ll likely see a focus on funding, the new Common Core state standards, and school security.

  • Earlier this month, Congress decided on a two-month delay in dealing with spending issues as part of the deal to avoid the “fiscal cliff” tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts.  As a result, states are having difficulty drafting budgets and are less likely to spend money on anything not absolutely necessary.  Expect Congress to continue to kick the can down the road, as the saying goes, leaving states in a financial bind.
  • The vast majority of states adopted the Common Core standards – 46 for English/language arts; 45 for math.  Some Tea Party conservatives, who see the state-developed standards as a federal mandate, will call for opting out.  But increasingly, states are looking for ways to help students meet the new standards.  Formative assessments and adaptive learning programs will see increased attention.
  • In the wake of the tragic shootings in the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school, some state legislatures will see bills to boost school security, and in some cases to allow teachers to carry guns. Indeed, half a dozen states already are looking at such legislation.  Few of these bills likely will become law, but a good deal of attention will be focused on the guns in schools.

 Two other issues likely will see attention by the states this year:

  • Technology will continue to attract interest – not only for its improvement of the education experience, but because many policymakers see laptops and tablets merely as cheaper alternatives to traditional textbooks.
  • State anti-union legislation will continue.  Some of it will impact teachers.


Friday, January 4, 2013

U.S. Education Policy: Seven Things to Watch in 2013

2013 will see state and national policymakers of all political views looking to shape and fund education programs for our nation.  Stakeholders will want to stay involved to make sure issues of importance are addressed.

Seven predictions:
  • Congress will talk about reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now in the form of No Child Left Behind, but won't be able to act.  Today's highly partisan atmosphere and strong feelings about the role of government in education make the compromises required to pass significant legislation difficult to reach.
  • The US Department of Education will continue to drive federal education policy.  Its financial incentives to states in return for implementing its preferred policies have resulted in broad adoption of the Common Core standards, more support for charter schools and stronger teacher evaluations.  The Department currently is offering waivers from certain NCLB accountability requirements, which three dozen states already have taken advantage of.  Expect more such programs as the Department acts while Congress can't.
  • States increasingly will seek exemptions from No Child Left Behind's testing requirements.  Expect Congressional and state hearings seeking to discredit testing.  Formative assessments and adaptive learning systems increasingly will be seen as smarter alternatives to once-a-year "high stakes" tests.
  • Federal funding for education will be reduced as a result of the "fiscal cliff" issues, perhaps by as much as 8%.  States are in no shape to make up the difference.  Cuts are likely, so sales and influencer relationships will be very important.
  • Technology will continue to attract interest -- not primarily for its improvement of the education experience, but because policymakers too often see laptops and tablets merely as cheaper alternatives to traditional textbooks.  This will present pricing challenges and growth opportunities for content providers.
  • The Common Core standards will come under fire from Tea Party conservatives who see them as an Obama program, despite the fact they were developed by the National Governors' Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  Some states will delay implementation, raising questions about alignment of instructional materials.
  • State anti-union legislation will continue.  Some of it will impact teachers.


U.S. Trade Policy: Seven Things to Watch in 2013


The new year should see a good bit of activity on trade policy issues as policymakers look for ways to boost economic opportunities for companies, workers and farmers in their countries.

Seven predictions for 2013: 
  • The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations will conclude in 2013.  When enacted, TPP will create a significant trading bloc among key countries touching the Pacific Ocean.
  • The United States and the European Union will formally launch negotiations for a US-EU trade agreement.  The resulting deal won't likely be in the form of a regular, high-standard, US free trade agreement, but nevertheless will further expand and improve trans-Atlantic trade. 
  • The United States will launch formal Bilateral Investment Treaty negotiations with China and India.  The process will take several years, but will strengthen relationships in the meantime. 
  • The new global agreement on services among willing nations, to be launched this Spring, will build on the progress made in the WTO's stalled Doha Round and further boost this vibrant sector of the global economy. 
  • Negotiations toward a global trade facilitation and customs agreement building on work done during the Doha Round will be launched. 
  • Progress will be made on China's accession to the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement. 
  • Congress will look at new "fast track" legislation.  Such legislation, which expired several years ago, allows the Administration to negotiate trade agreements in consultation with Congress and submit them for an up or down vote with no possibility for amendments.  This assures US counter-parties that Congress won't add additions requirements after the agreement is finalized.