Category Archives: Democrat

U.S. President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act during a ceremony with fellow Democrats in the East Room of the White House March 23, 2010 in Washington, DC.

Win McNamee | Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel and regained it in this decade. Obamacare played a major role each time.

In 2010, a voter rebellion against the health-care law helped Republicans wallop Democrats and gain House control. Eight years later, Democrats made GOP efforts to scrap Obamacare the centerpiece of their campaigns and then won back the chamber.

"I'll just tell you that the lesson from all of this is that health-care policy is treacherous politics," said Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican congressman. He won Florida's swing 26th District in 2014 after a campaign in which he promised to repeal Obamacare, then lost his seat to Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in 2018 following a vote to scrap the law.

In the nearly 10 years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, it has gone from political anchor to tailwind for Democrats. President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement became one of the defining issues of the decade and shaped recent elections more than just about any other policy issue.

"Backlash to the ruling party's actions on health care were a significant part of both the 2010 and 2018 waves," said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of election forecasting site Sabato's Crystal Ball. He added that resistance to the law also probably helped the GOP in the 2014 midterms, especially after a messy rollout of the insurance exchange website in 2013.

Obamacare sentiment reflects broader trends in American political opinion, Kondik said. Voters often buck the party in power, so the Affordable Care Act was less popular under Obama but gained traction once President Donald Trump took office. Both Democrats and independents started to feel better about Obamacare after Trump entered the White House, driving the increase in popularity, according to monthly Kaiser Family Foundation tracking polls.

Democratic calls to maintain the law particularly its provisions protecting Americans with preexisting medical conditions appeared to resonate with voters when Republicans got a real chance to replace the health system.

"Health care was on the ballot, and health care won," Pelosi told reporters in November 2018 after Democrats flipped House control.

The landmark law better known as Obamacare offered new subsidies for buying plans, barred insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, allowed states to expand the joint federal and state Medicaid program for low-income Americans and let children stay on their parents' plans until age 26, among other provisions. Last year, 8.5% of the U.S. population was uninsured, down from 13.3% in 2013, before Obamacare fully took effect.

Before the shift, the Affordable Care Act appeared to hurt Democrats politically at the outset as Republicans billed it as a government takeover of health care.

While a plurality of voters approved of the law a month after its passage, sentiment changed before the 2010 midterm elections, according to Kaiser surveys. In October 2010, 44% had an unfavorable view of the law, while 42% saw it favorably.

In the 2010 elections, Democrats lost 63 House seats. Republicans flipped the chamber and kept control until this year. The GOP also gained six Senate seats.

The incumbent president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. Even so, Obamacare appeared to propel the Democratic drubbing.

Nearly half or 45% of voters said their 2010 vote was a message of opposition to Obamacare, according to exit polling cited by NBC News in 2014. Only 28% responded that their vote was a message of support for the law.

After Republicans took over the House in 2011, then the Senate in 2015, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times. The party made opposition to the law a central part of its political messaging for years though Obamacare remained safe as long as its namesake president sat in the Oval Office.

The GOP gained another 13 House and nine Senate seats in the 2014 midterms. Following the election, then-House Speaker John Boehner said resistance to the health-care law drove the results.

"The American people have made it clear: They're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night. A lot of them voted for Obamacare," he said in November 2014.

Exit surveys cited by NBC News suggest the health-care law had a smaller effect in 2014 than it did in 2010. Only 28% of voters said they wanted to express opposition to Obamacare, while 12 percent said they aimed to show support for the law.

When Trump won the White House and the GOP held control of Congress in 2016, Republicans finally got their chance to dismantle Obamacare. While the House passed a repeal bill in 2017, the Senate never could. The GOP fell one vote short in a dramatic late-night vote on a bill to roll back major parts of the ACA.

The Trump administration has managed to dismantle pieces of Obamacare, both through administrative and legislative action. The GOP tax law passed in 2017 to end the individual mandate, a divisive provision that required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Public opinion around the law started to shift after Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress and started to propose their own alternatives to Obamacare. For nearly all of the stretch from February 2013 to February 2017, monthly Kaiser polls found a larger share of adults had a favorable view of the law than unfavorable.

But in every month since May 2017, Kaiser has found more adults like the ACA than dislike it. In November, 52% of adults surveyed by Kaiser had a favorable view of Obamacare, versus 41% who had an unfavorable opinion.

Curbelo said opposition to Trump, and his most prominent policy push in trying to unravel Obamacare, helped to drive a rough 2018 election for the GOP.

"A large part of the debacle that was that election, certainly in the House, can be attributed to health care," he said.

The former congressman said he does not regret his vote to pass the American Health Care Act, the House Republican ACA overhaul, even now knowing he lost his seat. Curbelo said the vote "was about keeping [his] word" to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he had promised to do since he first ran for Congress.

At the same time, the top Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination all support Obamacare. They only disagree on how best to improve the system.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., want a "Medicare for All" system to move quickly to insure every American. Former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg want Americans to have the option to buy into public insurance while keeping the private system.

"There is a significant segment on the left who appears to believe the ACA was insufficient, and even the candidates who are more moderate on health care, like Biden and Buttigieg, who want to do more on health care than the ACA did," Kondik said. "So at the very least, there seems to be some broad consensus that a future Democratic president/congressional majority should build on the ACA."

As the popularity of Obamacare and the former president himself have grown, Democrats have become more comfortable tying themselves to the ACA and Obama. In a presidential debate in September, Biden pointed to the fact that Warren said she was with Sanders on health care.

"Well I'm for Barack. I think Obamacare worked," he said.

In releasing his health plan in July, Biden also defended the law passed when he was vice president.

"I understand the appeal of Medicare for All," he said. "But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare, and I'm not for that."

Graphics by CNBC's Nate Rattner

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Read the original:

A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats - CNBC

WASHINGTON The high costs of health care are a driving force animating House Democrats in the swing districts that will decide control of Congress next year, with the electoral consequences of their votes to impeach President Trump unclear and a court ruling that left the fate of the Affordable Care Act in limbo.

From the suburbs of Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va., to East Lansing, Mich., and Southern California, first-term Democrats see the worries about health care that secured their 2018 elections playing out again in 2020, and they are eager to run toward them.

I have done 15 town halls in my district this year and the top issue I have talked about is lowering prescription drug costs, said Representative Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, who has made addressing health care costs the central point of his legislative agenda and his re-election campaign. The cost side of things is something people see on a daily basis. Its something tangible that they understand is a problem.

The House majority in 2020 will be decided in roughly two dozen districts like Mr. Kims in south central New Jersey, where Republican voters outnumber Democrats, but where a Democrat nonetheless picked off a Republican incumbent in 2018. Democrats hope the debate over rising health care costs will give them a decisive advantage, especially in suburban districts where Mr. Trump, who has failed to deliver on his promises to lower drug prices, remains unpopular.

The Republicans relentless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act when they were in charge helped Democrats take back the House in 2018. Now, even as the future of the law hangs in the balance in the court system, with an appeals court striking down the individual mandate last week but further delaying any resolution, much of the Democrats political message has moved from how to save health care to how to pay for it.

Im confident health care will be a huge part of the election discussion next year, said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan analysis of congressional races. Democrats want to talk about health care, in part because they believe it was a key factor in helping them win back the House in 2018.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, recalled how in 2017, when she was running for her first term, a major concern she heard from voters was the potential loss of protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

That was top of mind, she said. Then it would go into the cost of premiums and cost of prescription drugs. Now the starting point is the cost of drugs, and, Oh by the way, I want to make sure pre-existing conditions are protected.

House Democrats passed far-reaching legislation this month that would empower the federal government to negotiate lower prices for scores of prescription medications, all but force pharmaceutical companies to offer those prices to all consumers and cap out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans have labeled the House bill a form of socialism, and they dislike the notion of the government negotiating directly with drugmakers, even though Mr. Trump was among the first people in Washington to promote the idea. The Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the House bill. But Democrats are set to run hard on it, providing them another point of contrast as they go back to their districts.

Over 80 percent of Americans believe that Congress should work to lower prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has been tracking public opinion on health care issues for two decades. The foundation found that Americans viewed lowering prescription drug costs and continuing the A.C.A.s protections for people with pre-existing conditions as the most important priorities for Congress.

When Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, went looking for a district office in Lansing after her 2018 victory, she picked a building that housed a large health care center that served low-income residents, underscoring the central policy theme of her campaign. On a recent Monday morning, she attended a round-table event at the center with health care workers and Michigans governor. A patient advocate who lives in Ms. Slotkins district, Sarah Stark, held up vials of insulin that she said now cost her $335 each. People are losing their homes, and their ability to put food on the table, Ms. Stark said.

Ms. Slotkin said the single most common question she hears while speaking to constituents involves health care costs: People will pull me aside and clutch my arm and say: I cant afford my prescription drugs. My son is rationing his insulin. I cant afford my coverage. Im paying more in health care and prescription drugs per month than I am for my mortgage. Im underwater.

Voters cite the rising costs of insurance premiums, higher deductibles, surprise bills from out-of-network providers and price increases for popular and often lifesaving drugs. Even those with employer-based insurance, once viewed as protection against rising costs, have watched their average annual premiums increase by 54 percent over the last decade. Added up, rising health care costs are hitting nearly everyone, nullifying the nominal gains in their paychecks.

The Republican efforts at repeal and replace ironically highlighted the protections in the A.C.A. that would be lost and generated more public support for the law than at any time since its passage, said Mark A. Peterson, a professor at the Meyer and Renee Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles. Now more attention has turned to the other live issue that remains, that has largely always been present and that the A.C.A. has done little to forestall, and in some cases is perceived to have made even worse: out-of-pocket health care costs for individuals and families.

Over the last few months, House Democrats, including many in their first term, have been churning out a slew of bills to address health care costs, holding town hall meetings in their districts on the topic, visiting health care centers and patient groups, and joining forces with advocates for lower drug prices.

Democrats are betting heavily that they have solidified an image as the protectors and defenders of the health care system, just as Republicans long dominated voters confidence on national security issues. They are aided in large part by their attacks on the pharmaceutical industry and a growing trend among Democratic candidates to loudly refuse drugmakers political donations. American voters have disdain for the pharmaceutical industry, according to polling by Gallup. The House Democrats playbook for 2020 will be to paint the Republican Party as doing big pharmas bidding.

The president has been playing Ping-Pong, said Representative Lauren Underwood, Democrat of Illinois. He stood in the House chamber and asked us for the authority to negotiate drug prices, and we delivered, and he walked away.

Health care, Ms. Underwood said, is central to her re-election campaign. She has written 30 pieces of legislation this year, much of it health care related, like a bill signed Monday by Mr. Trump that was designed to make a cheaper generic form of insulin available to consumers more quickly.

Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat of Washington and a pediatrician, said that making her constituents aware of the House prescription drug bill is her biggest campaign priority. She recalled a recent town hall event in her district, shortly before Mr. Trump was impeached, where she expected the impeachment proceedings to dominate the conversation. But what really got peoples attention was H.R. 3, she said, referring to the bill. That was like the grand slam.

Most voters had never heard of the bill, she conceded. This is why I am doing a lot of town halls, sending out mail to people in my district, and frankly it is what I will have to spend a lot of time on the stump and Facebook talking about, she said. Every time I am on TV, I talk about the cost of prescription drugs.

Another factor that has highlighted the high costs of health care is the back-and-forth over Medicare for All, which has been central to the Democratic primary for the White House. The debate shines a light on total spending, said Allison K. Hoffman, an expert on health care law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

In our current system, the health care spending burden is divided among many parties, including employers, employees, the government and charities, she said. In Medicare for All, its all shifted to the federal budget, which makes people ask, Why are we spending nearly 20 percent of gross domestic product on health care?

Republicans, who are fully aware of the drubbing they took over their attempts to unravel the Affordable Care Act, insist that they will not be caught flat-footed again, and that the debate over Medicare for All only fortifies them this time around.

Republicans are on much better ground this cycle, said Bob Salera, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Voters want bipartisan action to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs, not socialized medicine.

Democrats like Ms. Schrier, who does not support the Medicare for All approach that has been embraced by several presidential candidates and large swaths of her party, may well find themselves caught between their most liberal constituents, who crave Medicare for All, and Republicans and more centrist Democrats who do not.

I know there is a big movement to blow up the system, but I dont know that we need to do that to make a meaningful change in peoples lives, she said.

View original post here:

Democrats Who Flipped Seats in 2018 Have a 2020 Playbook: Focus on Drug Costs - The New York Times

House Republicans are feeling good about their defense of President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE in this months impeachment vote, and now want to use the divisive fight to cut into the Democratic majority in next falls elections.

Republicans would need to gain about 20 seats to win back the House majority, something seen as a tall order by most political observers.

Much will depend on the presidential election, as a Trump victory would likely offer some coattails for Republicans. Yet Trumps low approval ratings and the possibility he could again win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote makes the GOP an underdog in seeking to end Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPoll: More independent voters trusting of news stories Health care, spending bills fuel busy year for K Street Trump goes after Pelosi in early morning tweets complaining about impeachment MOREs (D-Calif.) second Speakership.

Gains by the GOP are much more likely, and Republicans are confident they can use the impeachment votes by many House Democrats against them starting with those representing districts won by Trump in 2016.

There are 30 such seats following Rep. Jefferson Van Drews (N.J.) decision to switch parties and become a Republican.

For the Democrats running in those 30 Trump districts, they now need to tell their constituents why they voted against their vote for president, and I think that's going to be a very difficult argument to make, especially with President Trump on the ballot, National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman Michael McAdams told The Hill.

McAdams argues Democrats will be in a tricky position given GOP voters are energized by an impeachment they oppose. He also noted polling that shows independents opposed to impeachment.

Democrats recognize the threat, particularly in districts such as Rep. Joe CunninghamJoseph CunninghamHow the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment GOP claims vindication, but Van Drew decision doesn't spark defections MOREs in Charleston, S.C., and Kendra HornKendra Suzanne HornHouse votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap How the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment Pelosi, other female Democrats wear black to mark 'somber' Trump impeachment vote MOREs in Oklahoma City. Those two districts were surprises for Democrats in 2018, with Horn having flipped a seat that had been held by Republicans since 1975 and Cunningham won a district held by the GOP since 1981.

At the same time, they arent sweating too much about the possibility of losing their majority.

One Democratic operative pointed to a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll showing 52 percent of respondents support impeaching the president, as well as a funding edge for the party.

The source said they expect Democrats in swing districts to place a strong focus on health care and drug pricing.

We have a huge, huge, huge advantage on drug prices and health care and it's where we're going to spend our money money that we have more than they do," the operative said. We have more money on the hard side than they do, which obviously goes a lot further.

Given Van Drews party switch, just one Democrat Rep. Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonGabbard under fire for 'present' vote on impeachment Gabbard rips Pelosi for delay of impeachment articles The Hill's Morning Report - In historic vote, House impeaches Trump MORE (Minn.) voted against impeachment. Peterson represents a district Trump won by more than 30 points. Hes held it for decades, but is likely to face a tough challenge.

Of the 30 Democrats representing districts won by Trump, McAdams noted that Trump won 13 by more than 6 1/2 points.

He also said New Jersey, where Van Drew appeared to decide his best route to reelection was to run as a Republican, will be a key state. Democrats gained four seats in the state in 2018.

Conservative outside groups have also ramped up spending on anti-impeachment ad campaigns, hammering Democrats on their votes in districts they see as winnable.

Shortly after the Houses impeachment vote, American Action Network announced plans to spend an additional $2.5 million in 29 Trump-won districts held by Democrats, following an $8.5 million spending blitz in the weeks leading up to the articles of impeachment coming to the floor.

And prominent figures in the party have been making the rounds on cable news and taking to social media in an attempt to amplify their anti-impeachment messaging, taking aim at Pelosi and leaders of the inquiry including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump's tweets became more negative during impeachment, finds USA Today Trump attacks Democrats over impeachment following call with military members Saudi sentencing in Khashoggi killing draws criticism except from White House MORE (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerImpeachment's historic moment boils down to 'rooting for laundry' Impeachment just confirms Trump's leadership 2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform here's why MORE (D-N.Y.).

House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph Scalise2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics A solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill House votes to impeach Trump MORE (R-La.) said he expects moderate Democrats to try to separate themselves from the impeachment narrative as the election grows nearer.

There are a lot of Democrats today who voted for people who can't go back home and explain that vote, and I will challenge them if they're getting a lot of people criticizing their vote, I would challenge them to invite Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to explain what was done today, he told reporters immediately after the impeachment vote.

The Democratic operative said if Republicans were that confident about winning back the majority in 2020, fewer would be retiring.

So far 25 Republicans have announced they will not run for reelection next year, including Reps. Will HurdWilliam Ballard HurdSunday shows - Republicans, Democrats maneuver ahead of House impeachment vote Texas Republican: You can oppose impeachment and disagree with 'some of this behavior' Sunday Talk Shows: Lawmakers look ahead to House vote on articles of impeachment, Senate trial MORE (Texas), Mark WalkerBradley (Mark) Mark WalkerA solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill GOP begins impeachment delay tactics with motion to adjourn The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment MORE (N.C.) and George HoldingGeorge Edward Bell HoldingMark Walker mulling 2022 Senate bid, won't seek reelection in the House North Carolina congressman says he won't seek reelection after redistricting Democrats likely to gain seats under new North Carolina maps MORE (N.C.).

Some represent districts that appear likely to be won by Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has Democrats favored to win two seats in North Carolina that will be easier pickups for the party because of new congressional district lines brought about by a court decision. The two seats are held by Walker and Holding.

Democrats are also favored to pick up a seat in Texas.

If impeachment is so great for them, why are all their members retiring and why are they are not raising more money two signs that look bad for them in flipping the House, the operative said.

Follow this link:

House GOP vows to use impeachment to cut into Democratic majority | TheHill - The Hill

To the Editor:

Re Democrats Sparred Over a Wine Cave. Its Billionaire Owner Isnt Pleased (news article, Dec. 22):

It is amazing how thin a skin some billionaires have. Criticize their opulence or even mention a wealth tax, and they are quickly insulted or get all jittery. I guess more money than most people can imagine is still not enough to feel secure.

However, the issue is not a $900 bottle of wine served at a fund-raiser for Pete Buttigieg, even though that sounds extravagant by any standard. The issue is money in politics.

I do not begrudge the wealthy their money and the lifestyle it buys. Opulence generates business and jobs, and capitalism has spawned a good life for the majority of us. However, there are too many around the world and here at home who continue to live in or near poverty. There simply needs to be a far better balance and a system free from the heavy influence in politics that concentrated and unfettered wealth brings.

If you do not want to end up as a political talking point, at least make your donations without the need to serve $900 bottles of wine.

Bruce NeumanWater Mill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

As someone who fervently hopes for a Democrat to beat President Trump in 2020, I am deeply troubled by the wine cave kerfuffle and the Democratic lefts purity test. If fund-raising among those with deep pockets is condemned as corrupt, Democrats are destined to lose.

The situation reminds me of what the Chinese call Ah-Q-ism after a fictional character by the author Lu Xun. Ah-Q rationalizes that he has succeeded despite his repeated failures because he has the moral high ground.

I fear this will be the Democrats fate in 2020; they will console themselves for having retained their purity while all of the values we Democrats hold dear will be trampled underfoot, not just for four years, but for decades to come because of Trumpisms victory.

Ginny MayerEdmonds, Wash.

Continue reading here:

Wine Caves and Purity Tests in Democratic Politics - The New York Times

Billionaire candidate Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign may not be taking money from some of the most influential Democratic donors on Wall Street, but he is working hard to convince them he has a path to win the nomination.

Bloomberg and his team made their pitch Dec. 19 to at least 90 attendees, including many New York business executives, at a breakfast at his campaign headquarters in New York, according to people who attended. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity due the conversations being deemed private.

According to the people, Bloomberg himself prodded the financiers to open up their donor networks to the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties. Bloomberg donated more than $106,000 to the DNC in November, according to the group's most recent filing.

Bloomberg aides, however, focused on which states his campaign aimed to win in his quest for the Democratic nomination and the chance to take on President Donald Trump in 2020, according to the people.

The aides showed a map highlighting Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states Bloomberg could pick up during the primary. Those states' primary contests are scheduled for March and April of next year.

Trump flipped those states to red from blue during his 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Bloomberg aides also emphasized that they were focusing on a range of states that will hold their votes on March 3, also known as Super Tuesday.

Those who attended the event include investor Blair Effron, Blackstone Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Gray, real estate titan William Rudin, Signum Global Advisors founder and Chairman Charles Myers, along with Jerry Speyer, a real estate investor and co-founder of Tishman Speyer.

A Bloomberg campaign aide said others in attendance included Valerie Wilpon, wife of New York Mets co-owner Jeff Wilpon; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Chairman Brad Karp; Kathy Chenault, wife of former American Express CEO Ken Chenault; as well as several local activists and community and religious leaders.

Bloomberg's outreach to key Democratic financiers shows that he is eager for their support and influence, even if he doesn't want their money.

Some of the people who attended the breakfast last week are backing other presidential candidates, including Effron, who recently decided he's going to open his donor network to former Vice President Joe Biden.

Yet many of the financiers left feeling impressed with the Bloomberg presentation. They departed believing that Bloomberg wanted them to privately spread the word to their allies in the business community about his campaign's operation and how he plans to move up in the primary field. Bloomberg is dedicated to self-funding his entire campaign.

"The path is to do 24/7 ads, both pro-Bloomberg and anti-Trump, and to be on the ground in all of the Super Tuesday states well before the other candidates," said one of the donors who attended. "The premise is basically that there are so many more delegates in those states than the first four. They want the NYC business leaders to be supporters. Not monetary but just getting the word out."

Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg's campaign, confirmed that the meeting focused on the need for those in attendance to support the Democratic Party and how the former New York mayor could win the nomination.

"Mike made the case to a large, diverse group of politically active New Yorkers for, one, why he can win the nomination and is the candidate best positioned to defeat Donald Trump and two, why we want them to contribute to the Democratic Party across the country to help eliminate the financial advantage Trump and the Republicans have nationally," he said.

Bloomberg, who founded financial services and media company Bloomberg LP, has known several of these business leaders for years.

Bloomberg, after launching his campaign late in the game, is not participating in the February nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Biden currently leads the Democratic field in national polling averages, according to Real Clear Politics. Bloomberg, former three-term mayor of New York, is fifth, behind Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Bloomberg, who has a net worth of just over $54 billion, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads while hiring campaign staff in the states he is looking to win. Bloomberg has spent at least $11 million on TV ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, according to data provided by Advertising Analytics. In California, one of the most delegate-rich Super Tuesday states, Bloomberg has invested more than $10 million on ads.

Bloomberg's do-it-his-way approach goes beyond how he's handling his TV ads. The data-focused candidate is utilizing a technology company called Hawkfish, which he founded in spring of this year, to take on Trump and the Republican Party's digital operation, CNBC first reported.

The Bloomberg campaign explained that Hawkfish will be its "primary digital agency and technology services provider." Bloomberg has said he will spend over $100 million on anti-Trump digital ads. So far, he has spent $4.7 million on Facebook ads, along with another, $13 million on Google.

Original post:

Mike Bloomberg is trying to convince big-money Democratic donors that he can win in 2020, even though he isn't taking their money - CNBC

Its the holidays, which means you need something long to read while lounging around the house. Luckily, were taking a break from the news to give you an in-depth look at each of the Flyover states as we head into 2020. With the help of cleveland.com data guru Rich Exner, weve compiled all sorts of facts and figures from the past two elections to really understand whats happening on the ground in our seven states.

Today we head to Illinois. Heres where you can find our write-ups about Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio.

The largest of the Flyover states, Illinois also happens to be one of the largest Democratic strongholds in the country. The home state of former President Barack Obama is bolstered by Chicago, the third largest metro area in the country.

Considering the term Chicago politics is now an epithet against Democratic machine politics, its pretty safe to say that you can put this one in the D column for 2020. The state hasnt voted for a Republican for president since George H.W. Bush in 1988 (though notably voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 as well). Democrats control all branches of state government, including supermajorities in both the state House and Senate.

Its not just voting trends, either. Chicago has served as a sort of Midwest epicenter for the anti-President Donald Trump movement. It was in Chicago that Trump was forced to shut down a rally after protesters shouted him off stage. And its no wonder why. Perhaps no city in America is Trumps favorite punching bag more than Chicago a feud that likely started over his downtown hotel there.

Oh, and you cant forget the corruption, including a sweeping probe going on right now. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, is currently sitting in prison possibly awaiting a Trump pardon. Former Gov. George Ryan, a Republican and Blagojevichs predecessor, got out of prison in 2013.

Nevertheless, the state is often much more competitive than people give it credit for. Since 1990, three of the last six governors have been Republicans, though the latest only served one term. In the 2020 elections, the importance of Illinois actually lies in several of its congressional districts, which could play a key part in determining who wins the House.

Illinois is the largest of all the Flyover states, but is also the only one that has shrunk since 2012, meaning it will almost certainly lose a congressional seat after redistricting in 2020.

The full set of data can be found here.

2010: 12,830,602

2012: 12,884,119

2016: 12,826,195

2018: 12,741,080

Net change: -89,552

Net change in Flyover states: 724,790

U.S. change: 18,421,896

Percentage change: -0.70%

Flyover percentage: 1.17%

U.S. percentage: 5.97%

Voting age citizens 2012: 8,934,979

Voting age citizens 2016: 9,038,458

Voting age citizens 2018: 9,074,766

Net change: 139,787

Flyover change: 950,932

U.S. change: 13,557,146

Percentage change: 1.56%

Flyover percentage: 2.07%

U.S. change: 6.16%

Illinois is the most diverse of the Flyover states, largely anchored by Chicago. It is the only Flyover state that closely resembles the United States as a whole, demographically speaking. In fact, it is slightly more diverse than the U.S. overall.

The full set of data can be found here.

White: 71.7%

Flyover median: 81.0%

U.S.: 72.2%

Black: 14.1%

Flyover median: 11.2%

U.S.: 12.7%

Asian: 5.6%

Flyover median: 2.8%

U.S.: 5.6%

Other or multi-race: 8.6%

Flyover median: 5.2%

U.S.: 9.5%

Hispanic: 17.3%

Flyover median: 6.9%

U.S.: 18.3%

Foreign Born: 14.1%

Flyover median: 5.5%

U.S.: 13.7%

Median age: 38.3

Flyover median: 39.5

U.S. median: 38.2

Illinois is far and away the most educated of the Flyover states. It has a higher rate of high school graduation, bachelors degrees and professional degrees for residents aged 25 and up than the country as a whole. It also has, by far, the highest median family income of Flyover states.

The full set of data can be found here.

High school degree or higher (25+): 89.5%

Flyover median: 91%

United States: 88.3%

Bachelors or higher (25+): 35.1%

Flyover median: 29.6%

United States: 32.6%

Graduate or professional degree (25+): 14.0%

Flyover median: 11.1%

United States: 12.6%

Median family income: $81,313

Flyover median: $76,068

United States: $76,401

When we decided to put together this list, we wanted to look at the jobs and unemployment figures around the time of the presidential election. Illinois was hit harder during the recession, with unemployment climbing to the highest of any Flyover state and higher than the U.S. unemployment rate. Its recovery was also slower, in terms of job growth, from 2013-2017. But since 2017, Illinois has outpaced its neighbors in terms of job growth.

The full set of data can be found here.

Jan. 2013 jobs: 5,782,000

Jan. 2017 jobs: 6,043,000

Oct. 2019 jobs: 6,192,300

2013-2017 change: 261,000

Illinois percentage change: 4.5%

Flyover percentage change: 5%

U.S. percentage change: 7.7%

2017-2019 change: 149,300

Illinois percentage change: 2.5%

Flyover percentage change: 1.9%

U.S. percentage change: 4.3%

Jan. 2013 unemployment: 9.2%

Flyover median: 7.9%

U.S. rate: 8%

Jan. 2017 unemployment: 5.3% (-3.9)

Flyover median: 4.9

U.S. rate: 4.7% (-3.3)

Oct. 2019 unemployment: 3.9% (-1.4)

Flyover median: 3.9%

U.S. rate: 3.9% (-0.8)

As I said at the top of this edition, Democrats have a stranglehold on Illinois state government. Led by House Speaker Michael Madigan, they have supermajorities in both chambers. Now-Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat and one of the richest men in the state, ousted former Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican and also one of the richest men in the state, in 2018. Democrats hold the rest of the statewide offices as well, though with more ebb and flow between parties in the past decade.

Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats, represent the state in the U.S. Senate. Durbin is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumers top deputy. The 18 members of Congress are split 13-5 in favor of Democrats, largely due to heavy partisan gerrymandering. Illinois is also home to Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

President Barack Obama easily won the state in 2012 by 884,000 votes. Illinois was the only Flyover state where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in 2016, which she did by a 944,000-vote margin.

Democrats have won the U.S. House vote every year since 2012 by anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 votes, though the delegation has fluctuated. However, in 2018 the blue wave overtook much of the state, with Democrats winning the U.S. House vote by more than 1,000,000 votes, picking up two seats in the process.

The full set of data can be found here.

2012 presidential election margin: D, 884,296

Flyover: D, 1,847,011

U.S.: D, 4,982,291

2016 presidential election margin: D, 944,714

Flyover: R, 251,345

U.S.: D, 2,868,686

2012 Illinois congressional vote margin: D, 535,884

Flyover: D, 539,951

Continued here:

Illinois provides the Democrats with a Midwestern base: The Flyover - cleveland.com

On a warm, hazy afternoon, supporters spilled out along the famed Venice boardwalk as Sanders, his back to the Pacific Ocean, thundered in his trademark rasp against the fossil fuel industry, drug companies, Wall Street and a "corrupt political system." As if sent by central casting, a seagull sat perched atop a streetlight high above Sanders' shoulder as he spoke.

But by this week, the leading Democrats in the 2020 field were all scheduled to return to their usual haunts in New Hampshire and especially Iowa, the states that have consumed the vast majority of their efforts this year. Compared to that sustained courtship, the visits to California looked more like a weekend fling.

The flicker of attention may have done more to underscore than alleviate California's perpetual frustration at being eclipsed in the presidential nominating process. California will award 415 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention next summer, far more than any state. History suggests it's likely that more than five million people will vote in the state's Democratic primary.

That will probably be least 20 times as many people -- and much as 25 times as many -- as vote in either Iowa or New Hampshire. California has more college students than Iowa or New Hampshire has adults aged 18 or older, and its Latino population alone is about triple the total population of both states together. And yet no one in California feels confident that the state will exert even a fraction of the influence over the outcome of the race than the two smaller, predominately white states that kick off the nominating process.

"We're definitely getting much more attention and not just for our money," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in an interview. "People are doing real events and they are interacting with real people. I think it's absolutely forward progress, but we haven't arrived at a place where we are comfortable with the culture of asking and demanding from candidates enough and vice versa. I think California is still so big that it's confusing to a lot of campaigns."

Early, then late, then back again

For decades, no state has agonized more openly about how to magnify its influence over the presidential nominating process than California. In the search for more leverage, California over the past quarter century has shifted the date of its primary forward, back and then forward again. But each choice has left activists in the state frustrated at its inability to convert bulk into clout.

"Literally in the modern day, starting really in the '80s, California has not had influence no matter where it's been," says Mickey Kantor, a longtime Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist who managed Jerry Brown's 1976 national presidential campaign, ran Walter Mondale's 1984 effort in California and chaired Bill Clinton's 1992 national campaign.

Through the second half of the 20th century, California anchored a familiar position as the final lap of the primary marathon. After holding its primary in May from 1912 through 1944, the state in 1946 moved its primary for both the presidential and local contests to the first Tuesday in June. That's where the primary remained for the next 50 years, according to data provided by Bob Mulholland, the former longtime political director of the state Democratic Party.

This period provided the heyday of California's influence over the nominating process in both parties. It effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 when Barry Goldwater beat Nelson Rockefeller and the Democratic nomination in 1972 when George McGovern beat Hubert Humphrey. Robert F. Kennedy's win here in 1968 placed him on the cusp of the Democratic nomination until he was tragically assassinated on primary night at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

But from the early 1970s to the 1990s, California in its June position was either an afterthought or an exclamation point on races that had been decided by the time the candidates arrived. Jimmy Carter twice lost here (to then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 1976 and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 1980), but that didn't stop him from claiming the Democratic nomination both times; likewise, Gary Hart's decisive victory over Mondale here in 1984 came too late to prevent the former vice president's nomination. Beyond the timing, California's influence was also diminished by the Democratic Party rules changes after 1972 that outlawed its previous practice of awarding all of the state's delegates to the statewide winner.

Frustrated by its eroding position, state political leaders in both parties engineered legislation that moved up the state's presidential primary to March 1996. The primary stayed in March through 2004 and then California in 2008 joined a procession of states that leapfrogged even earlier to February. "The catalyst for California moving early was nobody pays attention to us, but part two was: all these other states moved early so why can't we?" says Los Angeles based-Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who has run Sen. Dianne Feinstein's campaigns in the state.

Restoring influence

The move to an earlier primary date restored some influence for California. George W. Bush's win here in the 2000 Republican primary helped him beat back the unexpected challenge from the late Arizona Sen. John McCain; in the 2008 Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton invested heavily in the state and routed Barack Obama by over 400,000 votes.

But even in those instances, the California outcome was just one drop in a nationwide cascade. In both those races, California was part of the bulging concentration of states that held their primaries on Super Tuesday. In Bush's case, California reinforced the results of the other major contests and effectively ended McCain's insurgency. But in the 2008 Democratic race, California blended into the crowd: though it was the largest prize on the board, press coverage emphasized that Obama won more of the 23 states that voted that day than Clinton did. And in fact, after Clinton's decisive California win, Obama beat her in the next 11 states that voted.

With Democrats disappointed again by their limited national influence, and state legislators unhappy with facing a primary so far before the general election, California then voted to move back its primary to June, where it was held in both 2012 and 2016. In 2016, Sanders barnstormed the state for weeks in what was probably the most sustained California presidential primary effort since Gary Hart in 1984. But Clinton had effectively clinched the nomination even before she won California, and the same was true for Mitt Romney in the GOP race in 2012.

Frustrated once more, the state legislature voted to shift the primary in 2020 back to March, when it will again jostle with the other 13 states (not to mention American Samoa) elbowing for influence on Super Tuesday. California offers more delegates than any of them, but its competitors include several other larger states (Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado) that the campaigns cannot ignore. Combined, the other Super Tuesday states will award more than twice as many delegates as California does, according to tabulations by the CNN political unit.

The realities of the 2020 calendar

That daunting map will pressure almost every Democratic campaign into difficult choices about which states to prioritize on Super Tuesday. Across such a sprawling battlefield, "It is hard to compete simultaneously in terms of dollars and people on the ground," says Kate Bedingfield, Biden's deputy campaign manager and communications director.

In fact, with most of the delegates in the Democratic race awarded based on the outcome in individual congressional districts, campaign strategists say they will be forced to target down to the local level. "Every campaign, including well-funded campaigns, are going to have to make hard choices on Super Tuesday," says Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders.

Given those pressures, it's likely that California will be disappointed again in the amount of attention the candidates devote to it.

Sanders likely has California's most energetic grassroots organization. After his sustained campaigning here in 2016, he ran well in California, drawing about 46% against Clinton, nearly 2.4 million votes in all. As important, Weaver says, Sanders built a huge volunteer base that he is deploying again in 2020. Last weekend, Sanders' organizers knocked on about 25,000 doors across the state, Weaver said.

"No one can match that," he says, "and that number will ramp up considerably over the coming months."

The question in a state this big is whether any campaign can afford an organizing or advertising effort large enough to move a critical mass of voters, especially given how many other states will be demanding the candidates' attention at the same time. Many local observers believe that, instead, the results in California are likely to be heavily shaped by the results in the earlier states.

While many Californians vote by mail, and the first ballots will reach them between Iowa and New Hampshire next February, Mulholland says that typically 90% of all votes are cast either on Election Day or the 10 days preceding it. That means Californians will be voting precisely as the results emerge from the first contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and particularly South Carolina, which will vote on February 29, just three days before the Super Tuesday states.

Once again, California appears more likely to be submerged in a political wave than to start one. That prospect highlights what many see as the flaw in California's calculations over the years. It has focused its search for influence in the nominating process on moving toward the head of the line. But apart from the four states that are granted the privileged position at the very front of the calendar, influence in the primaries has usually come not from being early; it has come from being alone.

States that have carved out a place on the calendar where they have little or no competition from other states -- like Wisconsin in early April or New York and Pennsylvania in late April -- have typically drawn sustained attention from the campaigns and proved influential in the outcome, even if they vote later. Whatever California decides next March, it will share the spotlight with over a dozen other states -- and given how long it usually takes California to count all of its ballots, its results may not be fully apparent until well after the primary cavalcade has rolled onto other contests. "Being on Super Tuesday is not meaningful to a state the size of California," says Carrick. "In fact, it diminishes your meaning."

Even as California revels in more attention from the 2020 Democratic field, it may be on track to learn that uncomfortable lesson again in the new year.

Continued here:

The biggest state feels the most excluded in the Democratic race - CNN

California is a near daily punching bag for White House, so it figures that the largest tax overhaul in decades pushed through by President Trump would take aim at this deep blue state. But Democrats are now working to rid the rules of a particularly galling feature targeting Golden State residents.

By a slim margin Democrats in the House voted to remove a cap on deductions based on state and local taxes collectively known as SALT. Under the Trump rules, a taxpayer can deduct up to $10,000 in such levies, a critically low amount in high tax states such as this one and New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Guess what? These state also happen to reliably vote Democratic, meaning the lower number is a slap at Trump foes.

Why it matters here should be clear. Housing prices mean new buyers have high property tax bills along with state incomes taxes. Holding these SALT levies to $10,000 means that taxpayers are denied thousands more in deductions they took in years past. A state report last year estimated that Californians will pay $12 billion more in taxes.

What the House Democrats did is to undo the cap but with an addition. The super-wealthy earning $100 million or more wont be in line for sky-high deductions as before.

The vote wasnt an easy one. Numerous study groups say that the deductions are a gift to upper income groups who are more likely to have bigger property and sales tax bills. That worried some Democrats and led progressive members to oppose the changes. But the Trump deduction cap harms many more than a plush segment of society.

In an opinion piece in the Times of San Diego, local Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat, noted that 58,000 people in his coastal district making less than $100,000 per year will lose out due to the SALT deduction changes. Home sales may be harmed if buyers cant look forward to tax benefits that make a buy pencil out.

The future of the House measure is dim given the GOP majority in the Senate. But theres every reason to demand changes in politically contrived tax law.

This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.

Read more here:

Editorial: Democrats are pushing the right fix to a Trump tax law - San Francisco Chronicle

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in some regards might be considered the second most powerful Democrat in the country right now. He is second-in-command in the chamber behind Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and he was given a primetime speaking slot before last week's vote to impeach President Trump. Yet Hoyer is also about to become the latest prominent Democrat to face a serious primary challenge.

The House leadership is simply not cutting the mustard, Hoyer's challenger, McKayla Wilkes, told The Week in an interview. A young black woman from a working-class background, she says current party leaders are out of touch with the country and their own districts. "Hoyer and Pelosi are leading the party badly," she said, "because they're taking tons of corporate money, not standing up to Trump, and they're not championing crucial ideas like Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal."

Wilke's challenge is rightly seen as part of a growing leftist insurgency within the Democratic Party. If she manages to knock off Hoyer, it might be the strongest signal yet that the movement is winning the battle for the future of the party.

To be sure, party leadership was always going to be a challenge after Democrats won control of the House in 2018. The rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated that the party's previous moderate consensus has fractured. There is a large appetite from progressive voters for more confrontational, left-wing politics, particularly among younger people, a sentiment which is only growing as Millennials reach early middle age and Generation Z reaches voting age. It was these voters who largely propelled the victories of fresh faces like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib.

And yet, the House leadership including Hoyer, which essentially holds institutional control of the party so long as President Trump remains in office, has done little to capitalize on this movement. Instead, they treat the left wing much as they did in the 1990s: as annoying gadflies to be ignored whenever possible.

Instead of a full-bore attack on Trump, they opted for a narrow impeachment focused solely on the Ukraine scandal and only after dragging their feet for months. Instead of locking Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, or Mike Pompeo in the House basement to force them to testify, they proceeded with the impeachment vote without hearing from some of the central conspirators. And they have largely ignored Trump's wildly corrupt and unconstitutional profiteering off the presidency, not including it in the impeachment inquiry or any other major investigative hearing.

Their legislative priorities have also been less than bold. They passed a trade deal with Mexico and Canada that allows Trump to claim victory in his favorite policy area. And while they have passed a number of messaging bills that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promptly bottled up, even there the leadership has stymied the left. House leadership froze out progressives from negotiation over a bill to ostensibly lower drug prices, pushing a weak version that included one absolutely loony provision that would increase drug costs outside of Medicare so that program could get more money. That was removed only when the Congressional Progressive Caucus threatened to vote against the bill.

This brings me back to Hoyer's home turf, Maryland's 5th District. It is a very comfortably blue area: In every election since 1998, none of Hoyer's various Republican opponents got over 36 percent of the vote. Yet Hoyer is squarely in the middle of the Democratic caucus, and on its right in some areas he voted for the Iraq War, is a firm partisan of Israel, voted for Wall Street deregulation in 2000, and voted to give China permanent normal trade relations that same year.

All these are major reasons why Wilkes is running. "My vision of the Democratic Party is a party that doesn't take corporate money and instead of triangulating to reach 2 percent of swing voters, does a ton of organizing to reach people who don't normally vote."

Her campaign is also about specific Maryland concerns on which Hoyer has failed to deliver. Wilkes supports a massive program of 7 million new social housing units not just because her district has a severe housing affordability problem, but because "I have friends, actually, who live in the woods in an abandoned school bus," she says. She supports sweeping criminal justice reform not just because of the mass incarceration crisis, but because she has personal experience with the Kafkaesque prison bureaucracy, having once been jailed without bail for the ridiculously piddling offense of driving on a suspended license. She supports Medicare-for-all not just because it is good policy, but because she personally knows "people struggling with long-term care, preventative care, and drug prices." Wilkes supports the Green New Deal not just because of climate change in general, but because her district's coastal communities are under dire threat from rising sea levels. "In Anne Arudnel County, in St. Mary's County, people are concerned about the level of the sea rise. People have homes that are on the water," she says. "It's actually amazing that we haven't been wiped out by a massive flood, because there are parts of Maryland that are surrounded by water."

World greenhouse gas emissions reached yet another record high in 2019. Neither the 5th District nor the country as a whole can afford more Democratic Party dithering as happened during the Obama years, with minor subsidies for renewables coupled to an epic fracking binge that made the U.S. the biggest producer of oil and gas in the world.

It's a bit hard to understand the mindset of the Democratic leadership. Age is certainly one factor. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who has a primary challenger herself in attorney Shahid Buttar) is 79 years old. Hoyer is 80. Majority Whip Jim Clyburn is 77. At that age, it's rather common to get stuck in one's ways.

But it's not the whole story. Bernie Sanders, the most famous leader of left-wing Democrats, is 78. Elizabeth Warren is 70. Clearly being old in itself is no barrier to progressive politics or to being enormously popular among young people. No, the issue with Pelosi and company is not their age so much as how long they have been in politics, and particularly how long they have been at the top of the party.

Both Hoyer and Pelosi were elected in the 1980s, and both have been in and out of various House leadership positions for decades. Top Democrats of this generation internalized the Reagan revolution believing that the New Deal was dead and buried, that capitalism is basically good, and that America is an unalterably center-right country. Hence left-wing candidates always lose (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2016 notwithstanding) and the best that be done for the American people are fiddly tax credits and janky market-friendly schemes like ObamaCare. And while it is always possible for someone to change their mind, the top House Democrats plainly have no intention of doing so.

The only way to change direction, it seems, is to knock the leadership out of their individual seats, and put in some fresh folks with fighting spirit. A leader can't "be a leader in just name only. You have to be a leader and actions have to show that. We have to be bold and we have to be brave," says Wilkes. Leadership is about "sticking your neck out there for the people who actually elected you." Her primary is April 28.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

See the original post here:

Democratic leadership should be afraid of McKayla Wilkes - The Week

Democratic candidates for president in 2020 are making big promises about what they'll spend on K-12 education. In fact, four candidates have made the same pledge to triple Title I, the single-largest program for public schools at the U.S. Department of Education, which has a $72.8 billion budget. Another candidate has pledged to quadruple Title I.

But what's less prominent is how much those areas already get in federal funding; quadrupling Title I would bring spending on that program alone to $65.2 billion. So what are those gaps between grand plans and reality?

We highlighted six Education Department programs and compared how much money they get now to how much some of the 15 Democratic presidential candidates want to give them. We focused on four top-tier candidates based on pollingformer Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who's promised to dramatically increase funding for a program and who hasn't gotten as much attention.

We singled out their promises on relatively big programs (Title I and special education) and for a relatively program (community schools). Figures have been rounded and are in the millions of dollars.

A few thoughts:

We don't mean for these charts to be comprehensive and cover all the candidates' plans. We do hope they provide a good sample of the gap between what Democrats are looking for and the numbers right now.

Candidates don't always make it clear whether they intend to dramatically increase funding for a particular program all in one go, or over several years. (There are obvious incentives for not making it entirely clear.) However, even if their plans are phased in, they still differ dramatically from current numbers.

Several candidates have said they want to fully fund special education under Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. However, Warren is one candidate at least who has put a dollar figure on what that would mean in her administration.

A candidate who wants more money for a certain strategy might want to create a new program within the federal budget. However, the comparison may still be helpful.

There are often several line items that together make up big-ticket federal programs. For simplicity's sake, we stuck with the business end of those programs when making comparisons. For example, we focused on state grants within federal special education funding.

Big promises go in the other direction too: Sanders and Warren have pledged to halt federal aid to charter school expansion. The federal Charter School Program, which exists in large part to promote the growth of charters, is getting $440 million in fiscal 2020, the same level as in fiscal 2019 despite fierce, internecine fights over charters over the past several years. That illustrates the potential difficulty in significantly cutting or eliminating those grants.

Web Only

Back to Top

Continued here:

Education Spending: What Democratic Candidates Want vs. Reality, in Charts - Education Week