Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand: Homelessness Holds Steady Across Three L.A. Neighborhoods as Rough Sleeping Reaches a Four-Year High
SANTA MONICA, California, May 22 (TNSrpt) -- Rand issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
Homelessness Holds Steady Across Three L.A. Neighborhoods as Rough Sleeping Reaches a Four-Year High
The overall number of unsheltered people in three Los Angeles neighborhoods--Hollywood, Skid Row, and Venice--remained flat in 2025, but rough sleeping reached its highest level in four years, according to a new RAND report.
The 2025 Los Angeles Longitudinal Enumeration and Demographic Survey (LA LEADS) found that the combined unsheltered population was statistically unchanged between December
... Show Full Article
SANTA MONICA, California, May 22 (TNSrpt) -- Rand issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
Homelessness Holds Steady Across Three L.A. Neighborhoods as Rough Sleeping Reaches a Four-Year High
The overall number of unsheltered people in three Los Angeles neighborhoods--Hollywood, Skid Row, and Venice--remained flat in 2025, but rough sleeping reached its highest level in four years, according to a new RAND report.
The 2025 Los Angeles Longitudinal Enumeration and Demographic Survey (LA LEADS) found that the combined unsheltered population was statistically unchanged between December2024 and January 2026, but the composition of the population shifted substantially: rough sleeping--sleeping without a tent, vehicle or other shelter--rose by 20%, reaching its highest level in four years of monitoring.
"The total count held steady in 2025, but the makeup of the population continued to shift substantially," said Louis Abramson, the study's lead author and an adjunct researcher at RAND. "Compared to a year ago, more people are sleeping completely unsheltered, more spread out geographically, and with fewer connections to the systems that contributed to the prior year's progress."
Overall numbers were flat largely due to stalled progress in both Venice and Hollywood, each of which saw declines in 2024. Skid Row's homeless population grew again in 2025, hitting record-high numbers before ticking downward late in the year. It was the only neighborhood to have seen continuous growth in its homeless population in each year of the study.
Tent dwelling has fallen by roughly half across the study area since 2021, including a 23% drop in 2025 alone, but those reductions have been offset by growth in rough sleeping and vehicle dwelling, which rose by 11% in 2025. By January 2026, nearly 90% of tents remaining in the study area were in Skid Row, up from 60% four years earlier.
New survey data suggest tent removal may be contributing to the rise in rough sleeping. Nearly half of rough sleepers surveyed reported losing a dwelling in the past year, and 46% of those said it was confiscated or towed by government officials or service providers, suggesting some people may move from tent-dwelling to rough sleeping following encampment clearings.
"The continued increase in rough sleeping from 2024 to 2025 is concerning because our data show that this population can be harder to engage and often has greater clinical needs," said Sarah Hunter, co-author of the report and a senior behavioral scientist at RAND. "It suggests encampment-based approaches may no longer be effective and that different strategies are needed."
Skid Row remained the neighborhood with the greatest concentration of need, followed by Hollywood and Venice, though it also received the majority of outreach and housing assistance. In all three neighborhoods, barriers to service and housing remained high with formal employment nearly nonexistent, cash reserves limited, and most of the population lacking a cellphone or basic identification.
The report recommends tailoring homelessness interventions to neighborhood conditions and population needs, noting that encampment-focused strategies are not equally effective for people sleeping rough or living in vehicles.
"After four years of conducting this count, the unsheltered population today looks different from the population these strategies were built to serve," Abramson said. "Successfully addressing current conditions means rethinking how we engage unsheltered people, bring them indoors, and support them once they are there."
LA LEADS was the largest ongoing professional count of unsheltered people in Los Angeles outside Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority's annual point-in-time tally. It was conducted year-round by RAND survey staff and concluded in January 2026.
The report, Annual Trends Among the Unsheltered in Three Los Angeles Neighborhoods (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4903-1.html), was supported by the Lowy Family and conducted by the RAND Housing Center, which provides research and analysis to help address the critical challenges of housing scarcity and high housing costs, housing instability and homelessness. Other authors are Rick Garvey, Cyril Cherian, and Jason Ward.
About the RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure Division
The RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure (EEI) division aims to improve educational opportunity, economic prosperity, and civic life for all.
* * *
About RAND
RAND is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous.
* * *
REPORT: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA4900/RRA4903-1/RAND_RRA4903-1.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2026/05/homelessness-holds-steady-across-three-la-neighborhoods.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Extended Short-Time Work Allowance Exacerbates the Shortage of Skilled Workers
MUNICH, Germany, May 22 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
Extended Short-Time Work Allowance Exacerbates the Shortage of Skilled Workers
Shortening the period during which the short-time work allowance is paid could help alleviate the current labor shortage. This is the conclusion reached by researchers at the ifo Institute in a recent article for the ifo Schnelldienst. "We are currently seeing labor shortages in many industries and, at the same time, high unemployment in other areas. In this situation, it would make sense to reduce short-time work benefits
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, May 22 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
Extended Short-Time Work Allowance Exacerbates the Shortage of Skilled Workers
Shortening the period during which the short-time work allowance is paid could help alleviate the current labor shortage. This is the conclusion reached by researchers at the ifo Institute in a recent article for the ifo Schnelldienst. "We are currently seeing labor shortages in many industries and, at the same time, high unemployment in other areas. In this situation, it would make sense to reduce short-time work benefitsfor shrinking sectors so that labor is available for other sectors in the medium term," says ifo researcher Volker Meier.
Employees currently receive the short-time work allowance for a maximum of 24 months. Until 2019, that period was 12 months; in previous years, it was even as low as six months. "In its current form, the short-time work allowance inhibits flexibility in the labor market and acts as a temporary wage subsidy for companies. That makes it less attractive for employees to look for a new job," says ifo researcher Leander Andres.
To facilitate the transition of workers from old industries to new ones, it is important to provide targeted support for retraining and further training. "One option would be to provide higher benefits to short-time workers or the unemployed who are simultaneously participating in a retraining program or changing jobs," says Meier.
The study's authors also propose additional measures to increase the labor supply, particularly among the elderly, women, and immigrants: Retirement at the age of 63 should be abolished and deductions for early retirement increased, marital splitting with lower tax rates for secondary earners could be abolished, and bureaucratic obstacles to the granting of work permits and the recognition of immigrants' qualifications could be eliminated.
* * *
Publication
2026 Article in Journal
Fachkraftemangel bei hoher Arbeitslosigkeit: Politische Handlungsoptionen
Leander Andres, Volker Meier
ifo Schnelldienst, 2026, 79, Nr. 5 04-06
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/article-journal/fachkraftemangel-bei-hoher-arbeitslosigkeit)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-05-21/extended-short-time-work-allowance-exacerbates-shortage-skilled-workers
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basic
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Nick Gwyn, senior fellow with the Government Affairs Team:
* * *
House Bill to Make Blocking Federal Funds Easier Would Take Away Help People Need to Afford Rising Cost of Basics
Ensuring that federal funding reaches eligible recipients, while preventing and addressing factual instances of fraud, is a critical part of good governance that has typically garnered bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is making it harder for eligible recipients to access basicneeds programs and is complicating legitimate efforts to help ensure payments go to the right people. Many of the Administration's actions, instead of focusing on fraud, threaten to take away the help people need to afford essentials, like putting food on the table, seeing a doctor, or obtaining child care.
For example, just last week, the Administration suspended $1.3 billion in Medicaid payments to California, citing unsubstantiated concerns about fraud in the state's home care program. California officials suggested the move could harm almost 1 million elderly and disabled people who use the program to receive care in their homes.
It is in this light that Congress must evaluate legislation recently reported by the House Oversight Committee, HR 8464 (known as the Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act).
This legislation creates a new, broad, and subjective authority allowing federal agencies or the Secretary of the Treasury to block federal payments to individuals, nonprofit organizations, communities, and states. While the bill suggests this authority is narrowly related to preventing fraud, its language is broad and vague enough for this, or any other, administration to stop, delay, or condition payments for programs it opposes, or in states that it disfavors, using claims of misspending as a pretext to take away or hold up funding.
Indeed, the Trump Administration has already attempted or threatened to block federal funds that help people afford health care, food, child care, and other basic needs, claiming concerns about fraud, but often without providing evidence or misstating the facts.
HR 8464 Allows Considerable Discretion for Federal Agencies to Block Payments
HR 8464 would require federal agencies administering public assistance or benefit programs to "delay, condition or segment" federal payments if they have "sufficient reason to determine" the payment presents an "elevated" risk of fraud, or if the agency is directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to take such action based on the same criteria. This framework, which provides permanent authority for the current and any future administration, leaves considerable discretion to federal agencies and the Treasury Secretary to determine which payments to withhold.
For example, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could attempt to temporarily block federal Medicaid payments for particular services in certain states citing a rise in spending for that service, or a higher level than in other states, as "sufficient reason" to believe there is fraud, even if such spending was driven by changes in policy or circumstances. (The bill stipulates that an "increase in the volume of a payment amount" can be considered a "fraud risk indicator.") In fact, the Trump Administration has already suggested that increased Medicaid spending on home care services, such as helping older adults and people with disabilities with bathing, dressing, and eating, may be related to fraud when this broader trend actually reflects policy choices to prioritize home care over institutional care.
The legislation links its proposed authority to block payments to a current-law process for certifying the disbursement of federal funds, which are then provided through payment systems administered by the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This process applies to nearly all federal spending, including Medicare payments to health care providers and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payments to elderly and disabled individuals. HR 8464 includes specific references to federal funds disbursed by a state or local government under "a State-administered and federally-funded program," presumably referring to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs that states primarily administer while receiving federal funds for at least a portion of the program's cost.
The bill outlines that any actions taken under this authority are to be temporary, but it also provides some discretion to agency heads in determining corrective compliance. And the bill provides liability protection for any federal officer blocking federal payments under this new authority, making it that much harder to hold any official responsible for abusing their authority.
HR 8464 Would Further Enable Trump Administration to Block Critical Funding
The Trump Administration has already attempted to block federal funds for a variety of critical programs by making broad and unsubstantiated claims about fraud, citing inaccurate findings, or departing from statutory processes for addressing such concerns. Leaving the Trump Administration leeway to determine what is a sufficient reason to block federal payments is dangerous given its recent actions.
The courts have stepped in to prevent, at least temporarily, many of the Administration's most drastic actions to date. But if Congress were to pass legislation that provides explicit, new authority for federal agencies to withhold funds, the Trump Administration could be emboldened to be even more aggressive in attempting to take away funding for programs that help people afford the high cost of basic needs, like food and health care.
For example, in December 2025, the Department of Agriculture sent letters to Colorado and Minnesota threatening federal financial sanctions unless they immediately reevaluated the eligibility for all households receiving SNAP in certain counties - an increase in red tape and confusion that would likely have taken away food assistance from many eligible individuals. The courts blocked USDA from moving forward on this illegal demand, citing the agency's "sweeping, nonspecific, and unsupported accusations" and the harm to eligible families the recertifications might cause.
In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took the unprecedented step of freezing roughly $10 billion in funding for families' child care, basic cash assistance, and other essential needs in five states led by Democratic governors. This action was illegal, unsupported by evidence (or even specific allegations), and harmful to families with low and moderate incomes. The courts blocked the Administration from proceeding with this freeze until litigation on the issue is concluded.
Also earlier this year, HHS announced two separate actions to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid funding from Minnesota, and shortly thereafter sent pre-enforcement letters to California, Florida, Maine, and New York. The HHS letter to New York justified its probe in part based on an egregious mistake the Trump Administration made when calculating the state's spending on personal care services under Medicaid.
The federal government should address factual instances of fraud, but that should not mean taking away vital benefits from eligible individuals. Unfortunately, HR 8464 would further enable and encourage the Administration to block vital assistance and services that people depend on, especially as the cost of food, fuel, housing, and health care continue to rise.
* * *
Nick Gwyn is a Senior Fellow on the Government Affairs team.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-bill-to-make-blocking-federal-funds-easier-would-take-away-help-people-need-to-afford
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Two Thirds of Minnesotans Think That State Taxes are Too High
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Two thirds of Minnesotans think that state taxes are too high
A couple of weeks ago, the Minnesota Chamber released results of a statewide poll asking various economic questions. Few of the findings will come as a surprise to our readers, but Minnesotans are, it seems, familiar with the state's economic problems.
Affordability
"Affordability" emerged as a leading
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Two thirds of Minnesotans think that state taxes are too high
A couple of weeks ago, the Minnesota Chamber released results of a statewide poll asking various economic questions. Few of the findings will come as a surprise to our readers, but Minnesotans are, it seems, familiar with the state's economic problems.
Affordability
"Affordability" emerged as a leadingconcern, as it did when we polled the issue for the Winter 2026 issue of "Thinking Minnesota" magazine.
Only 11% of Minnesotans say their personal finances have gotten better over the last year. This correlates strongly with income with 19% of the highest income Minnesotans ($150,000+) saying their finances have gotten better, while only 6% of lower income (< $75,000 / year) Minnesotans feel the same.
* Nearly half (47%) say their finances have gotten worse, with over 50% of low-income
Minnesotans (53%) feeling this way, compared to only a third (33%) of high-income residents.
* 53% of residents between 45 and 64 years old said their finances have gotten worse, emblematic of a dissatisfaction with the state's economy for this generation.
Troublingly, few believe that their finances are going to get better (18%). A plurality see their finances as staying about the same (46%), while 37% say they will get worse. Those that believe their finances will get better focus on what is in their control, rather than in rising tides among the economy as a whole:
"I feel optimistic because I have a stable parttime job. I'm sticking to a clear monthly budget to reduce wasteful spending and I'm slowly growing my savings. These consistent habits give me confidence in my financial stability over the next year." - White man, 18-24, college educated
[View charts in the link at bottom.]
For real solutions to this problem, watch this space.
State and local taxes
State and local taxes are part of this squeeze on affordability in Minnesota:
"Rising property taxes that continue to increase our mortgage along with increased utilities like electric" - White woman, 35-44, < college educated
"Cost of living increase for fixed income families. And high taxes And getting taxed on social security benefits" - White man, 65-74, college educated
...
"My property tax and insurance have increased by 35% in five years I work for The Minnesota Department of Transportation. My wages have been increased by less than 10%" - White Man, 45-54, < college education
"It only seems to get worse for normal taxpayers and they always want more." - White Man, 25-34, < college education
Increasingly, Minnesotans do not feel that they are getting value for money for their high taxes:
When asked if Minnesota provides good value services and programs for what they pay in state and local taxes 39% say yes, but 46% say no.
* Half of middle-income residents say they do not get what they pay for, along with 54% of self described political independents. Gen X is also feeling squeezed, with 62% of men 45-64 and 57% of women in the same age bracket saying they do not get what they pay for.
There is also a feeling of deteriorating value. 51% of Minnesotans say that compared to a few years ago, Minnesota provides worse value for their tax dollars. Only 9% say "better."
* 54% of white residents, 55% of non-college educated residents, and 61% of business owners say they are getting worse value for their tax money now relative to a few years ago.
[View charts in the link at bottom.]
Minnesotans are not wrong in these beliefs. As we have noted recently:
* The average earning Minnesotan handed over 4.9% of their 2025 wages to the state government, a higher share than in 43 out of 50 other states. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/for-2025-the-average-earner-will-pay-more-state-income-tax-in-minnesota-than-in-43-other-states/])
* Minnesota is one of just 16 states where the share of the average earner's wages swallowed up by the state government in income tax has increased over the last decade. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/for-2025-the-average-earner-will-pay-more-state-income-tax-in-minnesota-than-in-43-other-states/])
* In 2025, Minnesota's state government spent $6,098 per person, an amount higher than in 45 other states. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/in-2025-state-government-spending-per-person-was-higher-in-minnesota-than-in-45-other-states/])
* Adjusted for inflation, Minnesota's level of state government spending per person increased by 18.5% between 2019 and 2025. This was a greater increase than in 42 other states. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/in-2025-state-government-spending-per-person-was-higher-in-minnesota-than-in-45-other-states/])
Minnesota's economy
Minnesotans don't feel that our economy is particularly strong:
A plurality of Minnesotans (35%) rate the state's economy as "fair," with another 30% rating it as "poor." Only 35% rate the economy as either "excellent" or "good."
* Residents of the Twin-Cities metro area are most likely to say the economy is "excellent" or "good" (40%), but even here, 60% are dissatisfied with the state's economy.
* Education is also a predictor of Minnesotans' views, with 53% of college educated residents viewing the economy as fair or poor, while 72% of residents without a college degree view the economy negatively.
* Similarly, those with household incomes over $150,000 are the most positive (47%
excellent/good), while more than two-thirds (69%) of those making under $75,000 view the economy negatively.
* Self-ascribed business owners and full-time employees are similarly negative about Minnesota's economy, with 69% of business owners, and 65% of employees saying the economy is fair or poor.
Further, they don't anticipate the economy getting better over the next year: 44% say it will get worse, to 20% better; 29% say it will remain "about the same."
* Residents in the Northern region of the state are the most pessimistic, with only 10% expecting the economy to get better, while 60% expect it to be worse.
* More than half (51%) of high-income residents say the economy is going to get worse over the next year.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Once again, Minnesotans are not wrong in these beliefs. As we have noted recently:
* In every single year since 2014, per capita GDP has grown more slowly in Minnesota than for the United States generally, a record of underperformance matched only by Wisconsin. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/its-official-minnesota-is-now-a-below-average-per-capita-income-state/])
* As recently as 2014, GDP was $4,700 per person higher than it was for the United States generally, or $18,800 for a family of four. In 2025, for the first time on record, GDP per capita in Minnesota was below the national average. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/its-official-minnesota-is-now-a-below-average-per-capita-income-state/])
* In real terms, median household income in Minnesota has fallen by 6.4% since 2019, a worse performance than in 44 states. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/gov-walz-record-minnesotas-real-median-household-income-down-6-4-from-2019-peak-worse-than-44-states/])
* Real, per capita Personal Income has grown more slowly in Minnesota since 2018 than in 34 other states. (Source [https://www.americanexperiment.org/real-per-capita-personal-income-has-grown-more-slowly-in-minnesota-since-2018-than-in-34-other-states/])
On each of these issues Minnesotans seem to be both engaged and well informed. It seems that they want a change of direction, and who can blame them?
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/two-thirds-of-minnesotans-think-that-state-taxes-are-too-high/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minneapolis Public Schools, Facing a $50 Million Deficit, Plans to Build New $105 Million Anishinabe Academy School
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
Minneapolis Public Schools, facing a $50 million deficit, plans to build new $105 million Anishinabe Academy school
Minneapolis Public Schools, the state's third-largest district, is continuing plans to build a brand new $105 million school to rehome Anishinabe Academy.
The PK-5 school "is dedicated to serving and educating the families of Minneapolis through
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 22 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by policy fellow Josiah Padley:
* * *
Minneapolis Public Schools, facing a $50 million deficit, plans to build new $105 million Anishinabe Academy school
Minneapolis Public Schools, the state's third-largest district, is continuing plans to build a brand new $105 million school to rehome Anishinabe Academy.
The PK-5 school "is dedicated to serving and educating the families of Minneapolis throughan American Indian, Indigenous lens, with a Native-centered curriculum, and through Ojibwe and Dakota language." Of the school's 219 students, 77.6 percent are American Indian. Minneapolis Public School District served 1,731 American Indian students in 2026.
Last year (2025), 7.3 percent of Anishinabe Academy's students tested as grade-level proficient in mathematics, and 11.5 percent were proficient in reading.
The project is moving forward while the district grapples with significant funding, building allocation, and staffing issues. The district has not been financially stable since 2017, and currently faces a $50 million deficit for the year. The financial department has been so troubled that two outside law firms were hired recently to investigate internal personnel issues connected to vanishing funds, and several top officials were removed from their posts. Financial district oversight was recently outsourced to a private contractor to the tune of almost $70K per month.
The district has been sluggishly working towards right-sizing the district for some time, as its geographic footprint dramatically outweighs actual enrollment. A November 2024 board report found that 51 percent of school buildings were underutilized. No concrete plans for right-sizing have yet materialized.
Plans for a dedicated space for Anishinabe have been in the works for some time, as Anishinabe Academy currently shares space with another organization in south Minneapolis. As board Vice Chair Kim Ellison noted at a recent board meeting, the community has been waiting 15 years for a permanent dedicated school facility. Minneapolis set the formalized planning and design process into motion two years ago, bringing on community organizers to gauge local desires and hiring indigenous contractors.
The proposed new PK-8 school building would be built on the site of the former Cooper Elementary School, currently boarded up. The new three-story building would be centered around a nature-filled open gathering place, and feature a rainwater classroom, medicine gardens, and a soccer field. Limited street parking is available for the building, but district officials noted that the addition of an underground parking lot (for an additional $3-5 million) would open about 30 further parking spaces.
[View image in the link at bottom.]
During a recent board meeting, the facility planning, design, and construction team, headed by senior operations officer Tom Parent, argued that a totally new, "non-colonial" building was the best choice for Anishinabe Academy. Parent noted "There are very few [district-owned buildings] that even meet the baseline criteria for what Ashinabe Academy believes is necessary to be successful and to match the vision." Seemingly drawing from prepared remarks, team member Sam Olbekson, member of the White Earth Nation of Ojibwe and architect with Full Circle Indigenous Planning + Design, additionally noted that an expansion to the existing Cooper School is "not recommended by the community due to its expression, that connection to trauma, that connection to history." One comment by a teacher, in response to the question, "What would make this place feel safe?" was highlighted by the team: "If it didn't look like a school, as school is a source of trauma for our community."
Olbekson painted a lovely vision for the building, bordered by the Mississippi River that would act as "teacher" and surrounded by the smell of cedar, saying, "The new Anishinabe Academy is imagined as a living village, a place alive with the rhythms of land and seasons of growth and rest. It is a place to learn, to make, to heal, to gather."
There's no denying that any student would enjoy attending their classes at such a nature-filled, bespoke site. But does MPS have the current organizational and financial ability to move ahead with the building plans?
The proposed building would have a strong physical priority placed on outdoor spaces, meaning that capacity would be capped at 650-700 students. MPS District guidelines hold that the minimum enrollment for other K-8 schools is currently 1,000, to offer the "holistic MPS experience," with a full set of electives and class offerings. Board members overwhelmingly agreed in discussion that the district does not have to universally adhere to that guideline, and that the American Indian community served by Anishinabe Academy can have different parameters.
Of course, the steep $105 million price tag was bound to raise eyebrows, but the only question about cost in the recent board meeting came from an honorary student member of the board. Tom Parent noted that funds for capital projects, by law, are distinct from funding that can be sent to teacher salaries, textbooks, or other classroom materials, saying "The funding for this work would be included in the school district's capitol plan." Board Vice Chair Kim Ellison said that the separation of the funds made her comfortable to move forward with the building plan, while other plans to right-size the district footprint continued. She said that "the promise has been made" to the Anishinabe community for a new building.
The board votes next month to move to the next stage of planning (design work, which will cost $2.3 million). If the money is invested now, the school will allegedly be on track for a 2028-29 opening. Five board members have already publicly indicated that they fully support the project.
The building project may be derailed in the future, as five board seats are up for reelection this fall. Given the complete lack of curiosity by the board as to how this school could be a wise financial choice for the district (plus the general chaos of the district) it's possible that a few of those seats will be flipped. But for now, it seems that it's full steam ahead for the new school.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minneapolis-public-schools-facing-a-50-million-deficit-plans-to-build-new-105-million-anishinabe-academy-school/
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: OCC Seeks to Preempt Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton:
* * *
OCC Seeks to Preempt Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act
Executive Summary
* The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued an interim final order concluding the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA) is preempted by the National Bank Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act.
* The IFPA, enacted by the state in June 2024 and effective on July 1, 2026, prohibits payment-card issuers, networks, acquiring banks, and processors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on May 21, 2026, by Competition Policy Director Fred Ashton:
* * *
OCC Seeks to Preempt Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act
Executive Summary
* The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued an interim final order concluding the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA) is preempted by the National Bank Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act.
* The IFPA, enacted by the state in June 2024 and effective on July 1, 2026, prohibits payment-card issuers, networks, acquiring banks, and processorsfrom charging or collecting interchange fees on the gratuity or tax portion of a transaction.
* The IFPA is expected to reduce bank interchange fee revenue while forcing both banks and merchants to absorb higher compliance costs, leaving card issuers to pursue alternative means of collecting lost revenue or cut rewards programs; moreover, the IFPA would reduce the efficiency of the current national payment network.
Introduction
The Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA), enacted by the state in June 2024, will become effective on July 1, 2026. The IFPA prohibits payment-card issuers, networks, acquiring banks, and processors from charging or collecting interchange fees - typically 1.5-3.5 percent of the transaction charged by banks to merchants for card transactions at the point of sale - on the gratuity or tax portion of a transaction.
The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has issued an interim final order concluding that the IFPA is preempted by the National Bank Act with respect to national banks, and the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933 with respect to federal savings associations.
The IFPA is expected to reduce bank interchange fee revenues while forcing both banks and merchants to absorb higher compliance costs. Interchange fees currently fund services such as fraud protection and insurance, as well as customer rewards programs, which consumers value and which boost competition among card issuers. Cutting these fees would likely lead card issuers to pursue alternative means of collecting lost revenue or to cut rewards programs. Moreover, the IFPA could increase compliance costs for both banks and merchants, reducing the efficiency of the current national payment network.
Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act
The IFPA prohibits payment-card issuers, networks, acquiring banks, and processors from charging or collecting interchange fees on gratuities or tax portions of a transaction. Merchants collecting the gratuities and taxes would be able to deduct or recoup the interchange fee.
Merchants can inform the acquirer bank of the tax and gratuity amount "as part of the authorization or settlement process for the electronic payment transaction." This would require a merchant's point-of-sale system to separate the value of the goods and services, the tax, and the gratuity portion of each transaction and relay that information during the authorization or settlement process. In turn, the issuer and payment network would exclude the gratuity and tax portions when calculating the interchange fee in real time.
Alternately, if the merchant does not transmit the specific gratuity and tax amount as part of the transaction, it has the option of submitting tax documentation to the acquiring bank within 180 days. Within 30 days of submission, the issuer must credit the interchange fee charged on the gratuity and tax portion of the transaction back to the merchant.
Moreover, the law prohibits issuers, a payment card network, an acquirer bank, or a processor from "alter[ing] or manipulat[ing] the computation and imposition of interchange fees by increasing the rate or amount of the fees applicable to or imposed upon the portion of a credit or debt card transaction not attributable to the taxes or other fees charged to the retailer to circumvent the effect...." In other words, these entities cannot artificially increase the interchange fee on the non-gratuity and non-tax portion of the transaction to generate the same interchange fee they would have received prior to the IFPA.
The Rise of Payment Card Adoption
The IFPA poses significant risk to the payment card system. According to the Federal Reserve's 2025 Findings from the Diary of Consumer Payment Choice, credit and debit cards accounted for 65 percent.
The survey also found that the "number of credit card payments grew more rapidly than payments overall and made up 35% of all payments in 2024, a 17 percentage-point increase from 2016." Moreover, "more than three-quarters of respondents preferred using a credit or debit card" for in-person payments.
These payments reflect changing consumer preferences, moving away from cumbersome in-person cash transactions toward the convenience and security of using a payment card from anywhere. Firms have recognized that accepting credit cards can boost sales and improve customer satisfaction.
Consequences of IFPA
National banks and federal savings associations are members of efficient, nationwide card networks that are compensated by merchants with fees, including interchange fees, for their payment card services. The IFPA will likely have two effects on the payment card systems: reducing the total amount of interchange fees collected by banks and increasing compliance costs for both banks and merchants.
Interchange fees are more than just a cost for processing a transaction; they fund fraud prevention, insurance, and consumer rewards programs. Excluding the tax and gratuity portion from the calculated interchange fee would reduce overall interchange fee revenue.
History shows the likely consequences of reducing this revenue source. After Congress passed the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act - which capped interchange fees on debit card transactions - rewards programs for debit card usage disappeared. Analysis from the Kellog School of Management at Northwestern University found that the "loss of debit-card rewards led to a 30-percent decline in debit-card payment volumes and a corresponding increase in credit-card payment volumes."
Unlike the Durbin Amendment, however, the IFPA applies to both debit and credit card transactions. Because consumers overwhelmingly prefer cards as a form of payment, and are unlikely to switch back to cash, consumers and businesses will ultimately be left to replace banks' lost revenue through higher costs and significantly reduced consumer rewards.
Moreover, merchants and banks will face increased compliance costs. Merchants will likely have to upgrade point-of-sale equipment and software to isolate the base cost of the goods and services sold from the tax and gratuity portions of the transaction before transmitting the data to the issuing bank. This could also require point-of-sale equipment and software manufacturers to develop systems with the capabilities to support this function.
Without a point-of-sale system capable of separating these amounts, merchants - who directly pay the interchange fees - will have to maintain accurate records and submit them to the bank to recoup the portion of the transaction exempt from interchange fees. It is possible that smaller merchants will forgo this effort as the cost of tracking these records outweighs the benefits of recouping these fees. The IFPA would therefore leave banks with higher revenue than that to which they are entitled.
Similarly, banks will need to upgrade systems to properly receive the transmitted data and calculate interchange fees based on the delineated transaction information from merchants. Banks will not only need to set up a system for merchants seeking to recoup interchange fees charged on taxes and gratuities but attempt to estimate, and then set aside, funds necessary to cover the reimbursements. For instance, a transaction totaling $100 would - at a 2-percent interchange fee - typically have an interchange fee of $2. Transactions that do not separate the base amount from taxes and gratuities leave banks guessing how much of the interchange fee is subject to merchant reimbursement. In this example, assuming a transaction with a base cost of $50, $5 of tax and $45 of a gratuity, the bank would need to set aside 50 percent of the total interchange fee and refund the merchant $1. Alternatively, that same transaction could have a base cost of $90, $10 of tax, and no gratuity, amounting to a refund of 20 cents, leaving banks guessing at what the ultimate reimbursement liability will be.
It is possible that some participants - including merchants, banks, and card networks - could choose to decline transactions subject to the IFPA, leaving consumers with fewer payment options.
The costs of compliance will be recovered through higher prices for users of the payment networks, diminishing their efficiency and attractiveness. Declining transactions affected by the IFPA unnecessarily balkanizes the seamless nationwide nature of the current networks. The possibility that other states will imitate the Illinois law raises the risk of large-scale damage to the payments networks and large consequences for some participants.
Federal Preemption
According to the OCC, the IFPA conflicts with federal law and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. To support its claim, the OCC cites clarifying legal precedents of the Supremacy Clause - most notably Barnett Bank of Marion County., N.A. v. Nelson. In Barnett Bank, the Supreme Court held that state law is preempted when "'it prevent[s] or significantly interfere[s] with a 'national bank's exercise of its federal authorized powers." The Court further noted that "federal grants of authority in the national banking context are 'not normally limited by, but rather ordinarily pre-empt[], contrary state law." Consequently, the OCC contends that the IFPA conflicts with both the National Bank Act and the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1993.
Conclusion
The OCC's preemption of the IFPA is essential to protect the national banking system, remove uncertainty, and avoid driving up operational costs at the expense of consumers.
* * *
Fred Ashton is the Director of Competition Policy at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/occ-seeks-to-preempt-illinois-interchange-fee-prohibition-act/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute: DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters - Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota expose
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 22 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following news release on May 21, 2026:
* * *
DOJ Sends Clear Message to Fraudsters: Americans Are Not Your Piggybank
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) released the following statement from Brett Tolman, Chair for Law and Justice, in response to news that the U.S. Department of Justice has charged 15 individuals over more than $90 million in fraud in Minnesota:
"We applaud the DOJ for launching one of the most robust anti-fraud enforcement efforts in generations.
The criminal charges announced in Minnesota exposea shocking abuse of taxpayer funds meant to serve Americans in need, enabled by years of a disgraceful lack of oversight and willful negligence by America-last leaders.
This aggressive action sends a clear message: Stealing from the American people will not be tolerated.
Actions like these by the Trump administration will not only put criminals behind bars but also will help restore public trust by ensuring that programs like Medicaid serve the people they are intended to help, not thieves looking to exploit the system."
Brett Tolman is available for interview. Click here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/contact/comms-team) to schedule.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/doj-suit-sends-clear-message-to-fraudsters-americans-are-not-your-piggybank
[Category: ThinkTank]
