Blog

By: AIF Staff

This week, American Idea Foundation President Paul Ryan spoke at the National League of Cities’ 55^th annual Congressional City Conference in Washington, DC.

In front of more than 2,000 local officials, city leaders, and community partners, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan talked with League of Cities CEO and Executive Director Clarence Anthony about the steps that elected leaders can take to expand opportunity in urban and rural areas.

Ryan discussed the work being undertaken by the American Idea Foundation and how it can help city leaders and their citizens tackle the pressing policy challenges of the day. Excerpts of Speaker Ryan and Clarence Anthony’s wide-ranging conversation follows.

Q. Since you retired, you’ve had a job with the American idea Foundation which is focused on fighting poverty and increasing economic opportunity. Can you tell us a little bit about the Foundation and the work that you’re doing?

A. Yeah, I founded this Foundation after I retired and I was inspired by my mentor, who was a guy named Jack Kemp. Jack was my boss and he’s the one who got me involved in politics. I was this young economics guy, running around America with him going to places like Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes down in Chicago. I spent a lot of time working on housing policy and long story short, the issues that I worked on and that were my passion in Congress were budgets and the rest, but also poverty alleviation.

And so, I spent a good chunk of time with friends of Jack’s, like Bob Woodson, running around America, working on poverty policies. And so, I decided to start a Foundation, the American idea Foundation, which is based on the idea that the condition of birth doesn’t determine the outcome of your life. It focuses on center-right poverty solutions.

There are a few laws that I’ve pushed into law in 2017 and 2018. I want to make sure that these laws are well executed: Opportunity Zones, Social Impact Bonds, the Evidence Act. I want to make sure that those laws are well executed. And so, there are some new poverty solutions that I really believe can move the needle on fighting poverty far more effectively, using the new tools that we have in law today than we ever did before.

I spent a great deal of time on these issues. There are some proven models of success that need to be built up and scaled up so they can be replicated, and then we can really put a dent on deep poverty, on deep intergenerational poverty. That is where I think the focus ought to be, because if we can get deep poverty, we can fix a lot of the other types of poverty situations.

Q. One of the initiatives that a lot of the local leaders are implementing and dealing with are Opportunity Zones and I think the challenge is looking at the growth and development in some communities and gentrification and displacement. So, what do you think about that balance between implementation and the idea of Opportunity Zones?

A. So, I have worked on this idea for over twenty years. Jack Kemp used to call these Enterprise Zones and we tried to push this into law in the early 1990’s.

It got to a point where when I was Speaker and we were doing tax reform in 2017, Tim Scott had this great bill. It was Tim Scott and a guy named Pat Tiberi who had a bill that was basically the concept that we’ve always believed in. From our perspective, reducing rates on capital to go into the poorest communities is a really smart way of getting capital into communities. When the score came back — score meaning the cost estimate of this bill, while we were putting the tax reform package together and we had a lot of decisions we had to make fairly quickly, we said this goes in there….

We were thinking to ourselves and I remember this conversation. We have to make sure that this is not just a tool for regentrification, where it’s just real estate comes in and pushes poor people out of the areas, but instead this is a tool for revitalization.

So, what my Foundation works on is to make sure that the Opportunity Funds that are being erected out there understand the mission of Opportunity Zones. The mission, and the reason people like me put this in law in the first place, was to get all this private capital that’s out there and put it into the poorest communities in the country and use it to revitalize those areas. And so, that means you have to partner with local, on the ground, poverty-fighters and groups that will help these funds to revitalize the people within them. It’s job training and jobs and we want it to go from just real estate, which we knew real estate would be the first wave of investment, but we want to go to retail, light-manufacturing, and other employment-density industries to come into these areas.

And sure, there will be allegations of “tax shelters,” I guess I would say, but the point of this is we want the tax shelter in the poorest communities so people put their money in these areas. So, we really believe that this idea has great potential to bring a lot of capital to the poorest communities in rural and urban America, and to revitalize. What we need to do is make sure that on the ground it is executed well, and that the investors themselves understand and mind their mission, which is to revitalize these communities.

Q. There’s another issue facing American cities which is substance abuse, whether it is opioids, heroin, or all kinds of abuse. Under your leadership, you shepherded a lot of legislation around these issues, what advice would you give to local leaders as money is coming to the cities to deal with substance abuse?

A. It was amazing how fast this problem sprung up. If you asked somebody in 2006, what an opioid was in Congress, they probably wouldn’t know what you’re talking about. This problem came so fast.

We put the biggest, single response to a drug epidemic in place ever. It really started with President Obama’s Administration and we finished this last session. The quick answer [for cities] is to come up with evidence-based solutions so when you’re deploying this capital and these dollars in your communities, it is going to programs that have rigorous statistical oversight. That, and track your evidence so that you can show what works and demonstrate that you can have good success rates.

So again, at my Foundation, we want to focus on evidence. One of the laws I passed with Senator Patty Murray was the Evidence Act, which promotes evidence-based policy on poverty programs to figure out how to measure what works and to be able to release all the data on the poverty programs in a way that respects privacy. This way, you can track the outcome of poverty programs and the same goes for combatting opioid abuse. We want to get real metrics and real data and real evidence on what works and what doesn’t work. That’s the key.

Because when we find programs that have been proven to be successful, then you can replicate and disseminated across the country. Federal legislators don’t want to hear: “Just send more money to this program that anecdotally does this and that.” They are going to want to hear this program has been proven, over these other programs, to be the one that is statistically proven to have the most bang for the buck and that will be more successful.

We now have brand new analytical tools that are being deployed to actually do that kind of tracking and that’s why I say, I think we can really move the needle on some of our biggest persistent problems because of data science we have. We have a newer ability through evidence and data to be able to actually fix a lot of these problems, and that’s the key for fighting opioid abuse. Let’s build models that can work and be replicated using statistics to prove our point. 

By: AIF Staff

Earlier this week, Paul Ryan, the President of the American Idea Foundation and former Speaker of the House, joined the Ronald Reagan Foundation’s “Reaganism Podcast” to discuss how applying the enduring lessons from Reagan’s presidency can help policymakers reinvigorate the American Idea and meet the current challenges facing our nation.

Ryan explained how the American Idea Foundation is championing timeless principles like free-markets, shared prosperity, and limited government that were the hallmark of Reagan’s legacy and still resonate today. Ryan elaborated on how America must renew its commitment to freedom and individual liberty in the face of socialism’s rising popularity and detailed how his Foundation is helping in that fight.

The entire podcast with Speaker Ryan and Roger Zakheim, the Director of the Ronald Reagan Institute, is available here and some highlights follow.

Rethinking our approach to fighting poverty and revitalizing communities:

“I spent four years, before I was Speaker, running around the country with Bob Woodson from the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, just learning and listening from advocates in the poor communities about the struggles and the problems they had and then getting extremely inspired by people who were doing incredible things, and that sort of inspired this agenda that we put in place and actually passed into the law in Congress in the last session.

“This agenda that described is basically to re-leverage the private sector and private charity and private individuals to get back into the game of fighting poverty more successfully. The War on Poverty was obviously a huge effort. Well-intended as it was, it barely moved the needle on poverty and it reinforced this notion in society that this is government’s responsibility and that you, as a private citizen, don’t need to worry about it. You pay your taxes. Government will take care of it and we’ll measure success based on how much money we’re spending, how many programs we have created, and how many people are on those programs.

“Our whole argument here with this with this approach, this Reagan-Kemp type approach that we champion at the American Idea Foundation is let’s measure success based on results and outcomes, on getting people fully out of poverty, and let’s stop segregating the poor and making this just government’s responsibility. Let’s make it our own individual personal responsibilities in each of our communities, and let’s embrace ideas and policies that can that can breathe life into that.”

Highlighting Senator Todd Young’s Social Impact Bond legislation incentivizing investment in distressed communities:

“I just launched the American Idea Foundation this last year. Our first field outing is going to be in Indianapolis with Todd Young, a great Senator who used to be a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and he authored this Social Impact Bonds legislation, so there’s some center-right poverty policies that we put in place that we will be exploring.

“Social Impact Bonds are a private sector solution where if you see a problem you want to solve, let’s just say: Homelessness in Indianapolis. You will float a bond to pay for this innovative, private sector designed solution that is pre-measured as to what success will look like. and if those metrics of success are met, then the bond pays off in a tax-free way. So, you get private sector investments into a private mission to solve a public good. And if it works, then it pays off. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. There’s a risk of that, but that’s the whole idea.

“This was a Todd Young initiative, and he got the idea actually from the Brits, from a great Tory named Ian Duncan Smith who put this in place in the Tory government and it was pretty successful. So, what we’re trying to do is say the War on Poverty is not just a government function that says: spend more money, get people hooked up on government programs.

“We’re saying: Let’s do things that are innovative, that integrates the poor, that brings the private sector into bear to solve these problems, and to get some real solutions. So, we’re going to be doing some field visits with the Indiana delegation and things like that are what we’re going to be doing.”

Recent legislative progress provides reasons for continued optimism:

“We ended up with the most productive session of Congress in the last session, which was the 2017- 2018 sessions. It was the most productive session of Congress since Reagan’s first term. We passed over 1000 bills in the House and more than half of those made in the law. It’s about 1178 if I’m thinking correctly off the top my head, so we doubled the production of Congress from its average and the things that you just described: opioids, criminal justice reform, and we had a very good poverty-fighting strategy that we put in place, which I call a center-right solution, and this is what I do work on at the American Idea Foundation.

“We passed Opportunity Zones. We passed Social Impact Bonds. We passed this thing called the Evidence Act, which allows us to use data, analytics, and evidence to prove the principles of upward mobility actually are effective so you can change the way we approach poverty. This is a center-right, uplifting, Reagan-type poverty agenda which we all passed into law this last session of Congress and now we’re deploying these policies.”

Tracing a legacy from Reagan-Era entrepreneurial policies to the American Idea Foundation’s work:

“I spent a lot of time with Jack Kemp, who became a mentor of mine, running around the country in poor communities and watching him proselytize the benefits of capitalism and entrepreneurship and upward mobility in the least of all places, in places that had no Republican whatsoever. We would go to all these places, and just watch Jack Kemp with his infectious enthusiasm, preach about the power of free-market economics and entrepreneurship. It was extremely inspiring….

“So, that’s what my Foundation is going to work on. It is going to take and champion center-right poverty economics, poverty programs like Opportunity Zones, Social Impact Bonds, and this new Evidence Act, which will be a vindication of our principles like work and personal responsibility. And it will work with Members of Congress to make sure that we can take these ideas and these lessons and champion them in the least of all places, in the poorest of the poor communities in America. It’s a non-profit, but it will work with Members of Congress and public officials to go and talk about these principles and these values and these policies so we can build an inclusive society.”

The importance of educating the next generation about the perils of socialism:

“Well, I think, first of all, with the end of the Reagan Presidency – and I came out of college in 1992 – but in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down, you did not have to convince young people in those days of the benefits of free market economics, which we called supply-side economics at time, or the pitfalls of socialism. There just wasn’t a debate because millions of young people, the same age as me, were teeming out of Eastern Europe decrying the horrible things that socialism brought about for them. So, the case between capitalism and socialism was not a hard one to make in those days.

“It is now. There’s this new, historically ignorant, romantic attachment to socialism among young people these days, which means we have to go back to the basics and relitigate these lessons. Unfortunately, you know, there are a lot of people who aren’t paying attention to history. It kind of seems to me that it’s the product of our success where we are right now. We rested on our laurels for too long.

“But then there’s also the case that like Reagan, after Carter, he brought in Morning in America, a Shining City on the Hill. He brought a great, sunny disposition of optimism toward freedom. And I think the free world is facing new stress tests: I think democracy itself is being stress-tested internally, but also externally by illiberal governments that have just digitized totalitarian regimes. And I think these are new stresses on democracy that present such challenges that you need a Reagan-like attack to this problem. You need a Reagan-like comprehensive plan of action to champion democracy in the 21st century…”

Recent reforms, economic growth provides hope for shared prosperity:

“Well, Trump came in and we put in place our Better Way Agenda, which was this economic plan that we had put together. We ran on it in the 2016 election and put those in place: regulatory relief, tax reform, all these things that we discussed, and it worked. And now you’re having massive wage growth, particularly from poor and lower-middle income workers exceeding inflation. It is the fastest wage growth rates that we’ve had in over a decade. And so, we’re beginning to see it have an impact on kitchen tables. Now it’s been just a couple of years. So, I think we’re going to have to have sort of sustainable economic growth in society. Wage growth, upward mobility to really sort of deny the oxygen from the populism that we see and build upon a Reagan-like kind of momentum….

“We have great economic policies in place. It’s making a huge difference. It’s reigniting upward mobility, but more importantly, it’s reigniting people’s belief and faith in their selves, their future, their economy that the system can work.”

Promoting inclusivity rather than the divisiveness of identity politics: 

“The concern that I used to always have was that identity politics would one day be practiced successfully by the left and would be proven successful, because not since Saul Alinsky wrote about it had it really been successfully deployed. I think Obama play identity politics pretty successfully with 21st century technology, and that was concern number one. Number two, and even more concerning in my mind as a conservative, is the right plays identity politics now, and identity politics typically is dystopian-type politics. It is populism based upon darker emotions: envy, fear, anxiety, that is not Ronald Reagan optimism, inclusion, inspiration. And so, the kind of politics that have been proven successful and that have an incentive to play in this digital age we’re in is identity politics from both the right and the left. And those are by definition politics of division. Identity politics is not the Reagan, optimistic, inclusive kind of politics that I was raised on and that drew me to politics my first place. It’s not the politics that I learned from Jack Kemp, who drew inspiration as a protege of Ronald Reagan, and that’s our challenge these days.”

Being inspired by President Ronald Reagan and his pro-growth economic philosophy:

“We lived on the Rock River in Janesville, Wisconsin and just downstream from us on the river was Dickson, Illinois, and so to my dad, having this guy who grew up in Dickson, a town like Janesville, make it to the presidency of the United States, and an Irish Catholic nonetheless! It was a big deal to my dad. He identified with that and more importantly, it was his philosophy, you know. My parents were not big fans of Jimmy Carter to say the least and my dad was excited about Reagan and excited about his rise. And so, I just could see the enthusiasm my dad had. He wasn’t particularly political really, but the Packers were losing a lot those days so there wasn’t much else to be enthusiastic about.

“I just remember seeing my dad really upset about the Packers’ poor performance in those days and it was just neat to see him get excited about it. I had never seen my Dad put a bumper sticker on a car ever – we were never a very political family – but he had a Reagan bumper sticker on the family car. It was an Oldsmobile ‘98 Regency sedan. I had never seen that before. I really just fell in love with watching Ronald Reagan right at the get go and it made me a fan to begin with…. There are all these Reagan moments that I remember vividly as a kid and it was basically because of my dad’s enthusiasm and excitement about Ronald Reagan that spilled over.” 

Last week, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan facilitated a conversation on how the federal government can promote public policies supported by results, data, and evidence.

The discussion centered around some key questions: Why does evidence matter for policy makers? How can we ensure data and analytics are collected and compiled by the federal government and academic organizations and then fed back to practitioners so they can improve their programs? What is the best way to eliminate bias and work to include a diverse array of data sources? How is the federal government utilizing data to meet the challenges facing our communities?

As Speaker Ryan made clear, the American Idea Foundation believes that if evidence and data shape our thinking and if policymakers learn lessons from programs that have demonstrated records of achievement, we can deliver better results in tackling problems and ultimately, improve people’s lives.

Joining Speaker Ryan on stage were Jim Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame’s Lab of Economic Opportunity, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, and Nick Hart of the Data Coalition. The three are widely regarded as leaders in pushing organizations and federal agencies to let data and evidence drive programmatic approaches and policy solutions.

The discussion, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, was covered by C-SPAN and can be viewed in its entirety here. A few excerpts follow.

The Role of the American Idea Foundation in Promoting Evidence-Based Policy:

“The reason why I founded the American Idea Foundation, which focused on fighting poverty, is to try and make that connection with the grassroots level where you have poverty-fighting entrepreneurs who have great ideas and great theories on how to move the needle. They have incredible credibility in their communities, but they don’t quite have the resources they need or the academically rigorous randomized-controlled trials and what not to build programs that can be scaled and replicated. That, to me, is the next wave and that’s what we’re doing at the American Idea Foundation.

“We are trying to make sure that everybody knows each other. You’ve got really sincere, authentic, effective grassroot poverty-fighters who fill a great need and have policy entrepreneurship that you want to encourage. You don’t want to sterilize that entrepreneurship, but you also have this great academic, rigorous new field that can show you have to really make a difference. It can say: Don’t waste time going down rabbit holes that have already been proven not to work. You also have all this private-sector philanthropy out there looking to make a difference but not knowing where to spend the money, so the connections they need to be made here are with the grassroot poverty entrepreneurs and the academics who have spent a lot of time testing theories and evaluating data….

“I really think that what the Evidence Act does is make those connections stick and combine the forces so it is not just a government responsibility but a societal responsibility to really get at the root causes of poverty, to really make a difference so we move the needle on poverty.”

Speaker Ryan on Why Evidence Matters in Polarized Political Environments:

“There are a whole host of influences on public policy. I spent 20 years in Congress working on such things and I think one of the most important influences, if not the most important influence on policy matters, is evidence: Evidence both for and against a proposition…

“People see these massive, partisan, polarizing ideological fights, and they basically get the sense that nothing can happen, nothing can move, nothing can get done. Now, ideology is not a bad thing. It works to order the world into a coherent philosophy. I consider myself an ideologue. But when you take your gaze away from the larger political fights of the day, you end up working up very discreet, very important policy issues that affect a huge number of people. Even in ideological polarizing times, so many good things that can make a huge difference in people’s lives, actually can get done. And I think that this is very, very important.

“There are massive areas of policy that were changed because there was almost overwhelming evidence around a policy change. One of my favorite pieces of this evidence is welfare reform in 1996. Welfare reform in 1996 didn’t happen because Bill Clinton was a moderate and Newt Gingrich forced him to act. Welfare reform in 1996 happened because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that a work-first approach was the most effective way for improving the lives of those on the old AFDC program…

“So, what does this mean for current policy? Well, when I was Speaker, I can discuss a number of reforms that we passed in law, in large part because of the evidence that was at the core of the legislation on the policies we were considering.

“We got so many things done because we had overwhelming evidence, and we did these things in yes – polarizing times on big, bipartisan votes.”

Ryan on Utilizing Evidence to Promote Effective Public Policies:

“Criminal Justice Reform is a perfect example. Huge momentum for criminal justice reform existed because state-based reforms provided an incredible evidence base that one could reform our justice system while ensuring the safety of our citizens.

“Family First. A massive rewrite of our federal foster care program happened entirely because of state waiver authority showing that prevention was a huge benefit to at-risk youths.

“Pay for Success: With the passage of Social Impact Partnership and the Pay for Success Act, we provided funding for states to partner with the federal government, to identify key metrics for social programs and make payments when results are delivered. What a novel concept!

“One of my favorite programs is MICH-V, Maternal Infant and Childhood Visitation Program. This program was created under the Bush Administration. It was codified under the Obama Administration in the Affordable Care Act, and then it was reauthorized under President Trump.

“Finally, the passage of the Evidence Act, which is what we’re here to talk about today, has been key pushing the federal government into a more proactive stance and developing evaluation capabilities, improving data capabilities, and ensuring that data collected by the government remains secure. I could go on and on, but from areas as varied as education to healthcare, from criminal justice to child welfare, evidence has played a key role in policy development and enactment.

“While the media concentrates on the political day to day, policymakers will continue to pursue policy reforms – based on evidence, that will improve the lives of millions of people in the future.”

Propelled by Evidence, Attitudes Evolve on Criminal Justice Reform:

“I remember in the late 90’s, both parties were interested in cracking down on crime: Three strikes and you’re out. Bill Clinton campaigned on these things, so you basically had a bipartisan movement on criminalizing a lot of these things and frankly, we overreached. But the politics of changing that stance were very, very difficult and it wasn’t until a decade had passed and we started seeing actual evidence – mostly from states, that were showing that we were missing the mark.

“We saw that drug courts were better tools than throwing somebody in jail for 10 years for some kind of non-violent crime. Can you imagine the politics of voting against being tough on crime, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat? I changed my own position from watching this and reading about this, but to be able to not just change your position because you were intellectually convinced but because this was the wrong course and reform was the right course, was really no small feat!

“We passed criminal justice reform this last session and it took us a couple of years to make the effort work, but it was hugely bipartisan when we got it done. I saw that as an amazing example, in a very polarizing political time, where we actually saw that what we had done wasn’t working. We realized there was a better way. The better way was politically precarious but we ended up moving the politics in such a way that it became kind of a no-brainer. So, I guess the question is, what is the next lift like that? Where is data and evidence going to take us?

Ryan on Why Lawmakers should care about Evidence:

“A policymaker sometimes has preconceived notions of what’s right and what’s not, and sometimes they are not correct. I believe you have to have an open mind to look at real evidence and change your opinion as to what makes a difference and what can work. Criminal Justice Reform is an example of that.

“I think you have to have policymakers that have an open mind to looking at evidence and responding to it, but more importantly, I think we are going into the 21^st century where data is going to be all-consuming. Data is going to be everywhere and we are going to be a data-based society. The question is: Are we getting ahead of it? Are we, as policymakers, going to make sure we take proactive measures to guarantee our privacy and to make sure that data goes where we want it to go, to whom we want it to go, and that’s what this is all about.

The data will help you better hone your measurements to make sure that the taxpayer dollars are actually going towards their intended benefit. This is what I would to people: Government is going to do this. Government will be involved in this space. Government will be fighting the War on Poverty forever. We will always be doing these programs, so why don’t we make sure it is effective and let’s try and shrink the size as best we can. I think those practical arguments are buttressed with good data and will help us make sure we get ahead of these things. I just think data and evidence helps you leapfrog what are stubborn, ideological, polarized expositions and gets you through them to make a good difference at the end of the day. We have done this episodically, now I think we have a chance to do it wholesale.”