Category Archives: Democrat

WASHINGTON Standing in front of the Capitol on Thursday, between twin banners emblazoned with the words care cant wait, Sen. Patty Murray assured a crowd of parents, home health aides and other caregivers Democrats are about to extend a historic helping hand to make their lives better.

We are on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation investment in our kids and our families, the largest since the New Deal, Murray said. And we can do it all by just making the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations pay their fair share.

Her party, the Washington Democrat told the crowd, is fighting to make sure a wide range of social programs and measures to combat climate change are included in the legislative package it intends to pass using a once-a-year tool that will let Democrats get around a Republican filibuster.

Those priorities, Murray said, include quality jobs, affordable child care, a national paid leave policy, higher wages for care workers, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants and making new monthly child tax credit payments permanent.

The reality is more complicated.

After laying out a 10-year, $3.5 trillion bill to transform the U.S. social safety net and combat climate change, paid for by raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest Americans, Democrats are in the awkward position of selling the nation on legislation roughly half that size.

Democrats have, in effect, taken the country on a shopping spree only to find themselves counting change at the checkout counter, figuring out what they have to put back after their credit card was declined.

In this overwrought metaphor, lawmakers like Murray along with the majority of her Democratic colleagues are the fun aunts and uncles who have piled the shopping cart high with longtime progressive priorities. The stingy parents are Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, centrist Democrats who balked at the bills original price tag and forced Biden to tell lawmakers on Tuesday they should settle for a total between $1.75 trillion and $1.9 trillion.

Such an investment would still be historic, as Murray told the crowd, both in its total value and its scope. But with half the money they had hoped for, Democrats are scrambling to find ways to cut costs without dismantling the agenda they campaigned on.

I myself mourn the fact that we dont have the $3.5 (trillion), but even half of that is bigger than anything weve done before, and it would be a good first step, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told the crowd before Murray spoke, repeating those last words slowly and deliberately: A good first step.

Despite what Murray told the crowd, even the $3.5 trillion proposal would not make the revamped child tax credit permanent. That credit, part of the pandemic relief bill Democrats passed in March over universal GOP opposition, has sent families monthly payments of $250 to $300 per child since July.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Democrat whose district stretches from the Seattle suburbs to the Canadian border, has been one of the leading advocates of making those payments a long-term piece of the U.S. social safety net. But even DelBene has only pushed for the program to be extended through 2025, when the previous version of the child tax credit was already set to expire.

Now, after lengthy meetings with Biden on Tuesday, Democrats are reportedly considering extending the child tax credit for just one or two years to cut costs. But DelBene said Wednesday she was still pushing for an extension through 2025.

I still think the right strategy is to focus on making sure we do things well, and a policy like the child tax credit which is already a proven policy, having an impact on families right away its so important for us to give long-term visibility, she said. So Im going to keep pushing for that.

The Internal Revenue Service estimates the new child tax credit reaches nearly 90% of American kids, and a Columbia University analysis found the first two months of payments lifted 3.5 million children out of poverty.

The tax credit is also one of the most costly components of the Democrats agenda, and Manchin has proposed cutting its cost by adding a work requirement and making it available only to families earning up to about $60,000 a year, Axios reported Sunday. That idea prompted pushback from DelBene and other proponents of the current credit, who warned that Manchins proposal would exclude many families, including those where grandparents care for children but dont work.

An analysis by the Niskanen Center, a nonpartisan think tank, found that under Manchins proposed $60,000 income cap, 70% of children in Washington and 65% in Idaho would stop receiving the monthly payments.

DelBene, who met with Biden on Tuesday, said the next day the meeting was incredibly productive and she had strongly opposed restricting who is eligible for the child tax credit.

I think the president also understands how important it is to make sure the benefits are available broadly for middle-class families and low-income families, she said. That continues to be a push, and well continue to fight efforts to put further restrictions on the accessibility of the tax credit.

Democrats have also sought to include major immigration reform in the bill, but the Senate parliamentarian a nonpartisan legislative referee ruled in September that such a provision couldnt be passed through the process Democrats are using, known as budget reconciliation, which applies only to legislation that affects the federal budget.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told Axios on Wednesday his party was still trying to find a way to give legal status to the more than 10 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. without a pathway to citizenship, but the parliamentarian could block that effort as well.

The problem with short-term funding, critics point out, is that while the Democrats legislation aims to raise revenue over a 10-year period, funding programs for only a few years with the goal of extending them later effectively hides their true cost.

These proposals dont actually shrink the package; they just shorten it, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget a nonpartisan watchdog group said in a statement.

Relying on these gimmicks and games doesnt make sense. The most ardent supporters of these policies should reject a framework that puts their long-term fate in jeopardy to make room for lower priorities. And advocates of fiscal responsibility should reject it because it will create immense pressure for further borrowing.

Other provisions of the Democrats legislation, dubbed the Build Back Better Act, also appear likely to receive only short-term funding, and some may be jettisoned altogether. A proposal to make community college tuition free for two years, for instance, may be replaced by a narrower scholarship program.

Republicans universally oppose the Democrats legislation, which would partially roll back some of the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy they passed in 2017, using the same budget reconciliation process to bypass a Democratic veto. It remains unclear if Democrats being forced to curtail their spending aspirations will take any wind out of GOP sails, as Republicans have so far focused their criticism on the total cost of the Democratic proposals.

Democrats say they aim to agree on a framework for their legislation on Friday and could pass the bill by the end of October. With the GOP united in opposition, nearly all House Democrats and all 50 of their Senate counterparts including Manchin and Sinema would need to vote for the bill.

Link:

Forced to downsize their agenda, Democrats make final push for priorities and spin scaled-back bill as 'good first step' - The Spokesman Review

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, October 7, 2021.

Joshua Roberts | Reuters

House Democrats will head into next year's midterm elections trying to hold on to their majority in the chamber as several longtime members say they plan to step down.

On Monday, veteran Reps. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and David Price, D-N.C., announced they would not run for another term in Congress. Their departures mean at least seven House Democrats will not seek reelection in 2022, compared with at least three Republicans, according to an NBC News tally.

The retirements come as Democrats face the prospect of losing House control in the midterms. They currently hold a slim 220-212 majority in the chamber. As the party of President Joe Biden, Democrats will have to overcome historical trends to keep their majority: The White House incumbent's party usually loses seats in Congress during midterms.

Democrats will try to extend their unified but narrow control of the White House, Senate and House for another two years. Republicans aim to leverage history, new congressional district maps and Biden's lackluster approval rating to win back control of Congress.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Retirements can not only signal pessimism about a party's ability to keep its majority but also can make districts without incumbents harder to retain.

Many of the Democrats who will not seek reelection represent areas where Republicans could have a tough time winning in 2022. Doyle represents Pennsylvania's 18th District, a Pittsburgh-based seat that Biden won by about 30 percentage points last year, according to Daily Kos data.

The president also carried Price's Durham, N.C.-area 4th District by more than 30 percentage points in 2020. House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth a longtime Kentucky Democrat who announced his retirement last week will leave behind the Louisville-based 3rd District, which Biden won by about 22 percentage points last year.

Other seats left open by Democrats appear to be better pickup opportunities for the GOP. Former President Donald Trump won outgoing Democratic Rep. Ron Kind's 3rd District in Wisconsin by about 5 percentage points last year.

Trump also carried Illinois' 17th District, now held by departing Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos.

Doyle has been in Congress since 1995. In announcing his retirement Monday, the 68-year-old said "the time has come to pass the torch to the next generation." Doyle said he wanted to spend more time with his family and noted that redistricting played into his decision.

States are drawing new congressional district maps after completion of the 2020 Census. While changes to Doyle's seat may not make it harder for Democrats to win, changes to other districts will force some lawmakers to run in environments less friendly to their party.

Price, 81, first spent 1987 to 1995 in the House. After losing a reelection bid in 1994, he won the 4th District back two years later and has represented it in Congress since 1997.

Price said that during the rest of his term he would "continue fighting for the just and inclusive country we believe in."

The midterms will be the first nationwide congressional elections since a mob of Trump supporters overran the Capitol while lawmakers counted Biden's election victory on Jan. 6. After insurrectionists spurred by Trump's false claims that he was cheated out of a second term were expelled from the building, 139 House Republicans and eight GOP senators voted to object to tallying at least one state's certified presidential results.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Read more here:

Retirements mount as House Democrats try to defend their majority in the 2022 midterms - CNBC

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-The Moon) made the Democratic position clear Thursday: If youre not with us, youre terrorists.

During his opening statement for the Attorney General Merrick Garland hearing, Nadler said there was no difference between the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and parents who are angry about what is being taught in schools.

This growth in extremist ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers, school board members and election workers, Nadler said.

Nadler, a partisan loon who spent the past four years stirring up every conspiracy theory against President Trump, claimed there was a broader pattern here, including the growing threats of violence against public servants.

Yes, it is terrible when a sitting senator is harassed and followed into a bathroom . . . Oh he wasnt talking about Krysten Sinema? The incident President Biden said was just part of the process? Huh.

Were sure he was inspired by the climate change activists who stormed the Department of the Interior last Thursday, breaking down the front door and attempting to occupy the building. He was calling on AOC and others to denounce them. No?

How about the fact that the letter the National School Boards Association sent to Garland asking for the FBI for help, as reported by columnist Christopher Rufo, cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official. That the letter is in fact hyperventilating bunk, describing shouting as violence and people who disagree with school boards as domestic terrorists.

Turns out the White House knew about the letter before it was made public. Did the president order Garland to get the FBI involved?

It seems like the Biden administration is guilty of what they always accuse Republicans of: Politicizing the Department of Justice, and stifling free speech through intimidation.

Actually, we are sure Nadler is aware of all this. But hes a dishonest, devious oaf who leverages lies into political gain. Its the Democratic Party platform now. They see an opportunity to harness the outrage over January 6 as a brush to suppress all their opponents.

Disturbingly, the Dems and their social media cronies repeatedly and casually abuse their power to enforce their ideology, rather than realize that perhaps the upswell of parental anger at teaching in schools is not the result of QAnon conspiracists but in fact is born of genuine concern and a sense of disempowerment over the future of their most precious charges.

Dont like teachers telling all white kids that they are oppressors just because of the color of their skin? Youre an insurrectionist. Think maybe we need to start lifting COVID restrictions because youre vaccinated? Youre a white supremacist. Oppose Build Back Better? Youre an obstructionist, a fascist.

Dont vote for Democrats? Youre an enemy of the state.

View original post here:

Democrats aim to make anyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state - New York Post

The report, which garnered so much attention that Bruenig published another post Thursday responding to the criticism, even won an unlikely ally: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

"There is a strong likelihood that we are going to see a change in the cost of care, which is already expensive, for parents who are not included," Caitlin Codella Low, vice president of policy and programs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation Center for Education and Workforce, said in an interview.

Democrats and advocates scrambled to discredit the report after its release and reassure voters that the plan would, in fact, bring parents' expenses down.

The Build Back Better child care and universal pre-K proposal will dramatically lower child care costs for the vast majority of working families, make child care more available to every single family and also ensure that child care workers are paid a livable wage," Senate HELP Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said. "This proposal will mark a foundational shift in how our country supports working parents and Im fighting hard to get it across the finish line.

Supporters of the child care plan fear the report, which they say was based on a misunderstanding of the bill text, will confuse the public as the White House and congressional leaders struggle to reach final agreement on what policies will be included in Democrats spending package, a Democratic aide said.

People are nervous because everyones on tenterhooks as this package shrinks and people are negotiating whats in and whats out, said Melissa Boteach, vice president of income security, child care and early learning at the National Womens Law Center.

The dispute centers on how the child care benefits would be rolled out over a number of years.

The bill approved by the House Education and Labor Committee in September would create a multibillion-dollar program to funnel money to child care providers and, separately, to parents of young children.

During the first three years, families' eligibility for the cash would ramp up: Families making 100 percent of their states median income would be eligible upon enactment of the program; those making 115 percent would be eligible the second year; and those making 130 percent would be eligible the third year.

The money that would go straight to the child care industry would also flow over the same three years, Democratic aides said, in order to gradually build supply. In the fourth year, an entitlement program with wage and other requirements based on data collected over the last three years would take effect.

"This program provides subsidies and grants directly to providers to cover the costs of low- and middle-income families, and those subsidies and grants will offset the cost of livable wages for workers," a Democratic aide said.

The People's Policy Project report makes the case that if the wage and other requirements went into effect the first year, instead of the fourth, it could increase child care costs for any family making more than 100 percent of their states median income, who would not yet be eligible for the subsidies.

The bill says that states have an option to implement the wage increases within three years, Bruenig said in an interview. It doesnt say it will happen after, in the fourth year. It could happen before then.

Im just looking for a number that could be justified based on how the bill is written, he added. It could be $10,000, but its not going to be zero. Its going to be a pretty big hike.

Advocates and Democratic aides say Bruenig's argument is illogical because the cash to providers would cover the higher wages and on top of that, the pay and other requirements would not formally kick in until the fourth year. In fact, they say, the child care sector is not robust enough right now to even support salaries like those Bruenig laid out.

Fundamentally, this analysis takes what we would hope as an optimal end point, and pushes it into the first year, said Rasheed Malik, associate director of research for early childhood policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. It takes an extreme set of numbers to come to a totally unrealistic conclusion, and in the process ignores all of the details that are in there.

Its not based on a close reading of the bill, or even a close reading of expert summaries of the bill, he added. We dont even have enough child care right now; we actually have to build our way up to a fully functioning system.

In fact, the wage requirements wont even be able to be calculated until the fourth year: They cant have wage requirements without the cost estimation model, which they have the first couple of years to develop, Boteach said. This idea that theres going to be a $13,000 increase for families is based on language that doesnt exist in the world.

Increased costs for parents could be avoided by making all families eligible for subsidies upon enactment, Bruenig said. Democrats' decision to phase in eligibility was just to bring down the score.

Advocates counter that doing so would not only be more expensive, it could hurt families by locking out lower-income parents due to the low supply of child care.

As much as I would love to roll out a universal system right away, that would actually have terribly negative unintended consequences for the most vulnerable, Malik said.

Boteach said Bruenig is comparing President Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan "to an idealized policy with unlimited funds."

Thats not the right comparison: The right comparison is Build Back Better with doing nothing. And doing nothing means more women get pushed out of the labor force, more providers leave the sector, and we have a collapsing care infrastructure.

Democratic aides say its important to counter Bruenig's argument so that the public is not confused about what they are proposing, particularly as progressive lawmakers make the case that their party should be spending as much as possible on child care, paid leave and other family-centric policies.

People are working around the clock to make sure that the design is right, the investment level is right, Malik said. If this were to become a viral set of misinformation, that would be extremely unfortunate.

Read more:

Democrats defend their child care plan against unexpected attack - POLITICO

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This article is adapted from Joe Concha's video commentary.

The voices of reason in the Democratic Party are Bill Maher and Jon Stewart?

The loudest voices on the Blue side of the aisle are folks like Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, N.Y., Ilhan Omar, Minn., Adam Schiff, Calif., and of course, the principled conservatives of The Lincoln Project.

And what's coming out of these folks puts the far into far left.

Defund the police! Free college! Cancel George Washington!And Thomas Jefferson too!

JOE CONCHA: PETE BUTTIGIEG IS IN OVER HIS HEAD ON THE SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: HERE'S WHY

Radicals have taken over the party and control the president. Why else would a "moderate" like President Joe Biden support trillions in new spending, A) without a way to pay for it in any meaningful way, or B) while core inflation is already at a 30-year high and climbing.

Are there any common-sense Democratic supporters left?

Well, there are, but theyre not on Capitol Hill or in the White House Theyre on HBO and Apple TV!

Here's Maher on cancel culture. And it's genius.

"China sees a problem and they fix it. They build a dam. We debate what to rename it. Thats why their airports look like this. And ours look like this," Maher said in March, showing a futuristic-looking Chinese concourse followed by a decrepit LaGuardia Airport sign. "China once put up a 57-story skyscraper in 19 days. They demolished and rebuilt the Sanyuan Bridge in Beijing in 43 hours. We binge watch. They binge build."

BILL MAHER ON CROWD'S HUNGER FOR MOCKING WOKENESS: FOR THE FIRST TIME I AM PLAYING TO A MIXED AUDIENCE

And then there's Stewart on the COVID lab leak theory. You know, the theory that was deemed racist by the New York Times lead coronavirus reporter and originally dismissed by almost every news outlet because Trump and Tom Cotton dared to speak of it.

'Oh, my God, theres a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China. What do we do? Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab. The disease is the same name as the lab," he told a visibly uncomfortable Stephen Colbert in June.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Stewart also warned the media to stop obsessing over Donald Trump during a recent interview on Trump-obsessedCNN. In a related story, Trump has been out of office for checks notes 275 days!

But to the left, saying, "Hey, maybe focus on those in power instead," is a bridge too far.

Bill Maher. Jon Stewart. Once darlings of the left. Now darlings of those with that fleeting gift called common sense.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It's a shame that those with the loudest voices in Congress, and in the White House, and in teachers unions aren't listening.

More here:

Joe Concha: As radicals seize Democratic Party, these liberals may be the only voice of reason left - Fox News

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks outside of the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 20, 2021.

Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

As Democrats wrestle over their spending package, key lawmakers are still fighting to change the $10,000 cap on the federal deduction for state and local taxes.

The measure, known as SALT, is a priority among lawmakers in high-tax states, such as New York, New Jersey and California, jeopardizing the Democrats' multitrillion-dollar plan.

The budget can pass without Republican support. However, Democrats need votes from nearly every member of the House and all Democratic senators.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who met with President Joe Biden and other party centrists on Tuesday, said he emphasized the importance of restoring the write-off, among other priorities, for families in his district.

More from Personal Finance:Inflation is here for now. How top financial advisors are handling itProposed elimination of Roth conversions for wealthy wouldn't start till 2032First bitcoin futures ETF starts trading. What to know before investing

"I'm working around-the-clock with my colleagues in the House and Senate to reinstate SALT," he said. "I'm also continuing to have conversations with the White House and leadership to ensure SALT is included in the final package."

Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., a long-time proponent of the SALT cap repeal, also re-affirmed his commitment to the issue.

"I have spoken to Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Neal and am confident SALT will be included in the final package," said Suozzi. "Restoration of the SALT deduction is essential for the economic health of New York and its middle-class families."

"No SALT, no deal," he added.

I have spoken to Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Neal and am confident SALT will be included in the final package.

Rep. Tom Suozzi

Democratic congressman from New York

The measure has also been a priority for other key lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority LeaderChuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

While Pelosi and Schumer aim for agreements on budget provisions by the end of the week, changes to the SALT cap are still pending.

The SALT limit has been controversial since former President Donald Trump added the cap during his signature 2017 tax overhaul.

Now, Americans who itemize deductions can't write off more than $10,000 for property and state income taxes on their federal return.

But ditching the measure may be expensive. The SALT limit deduction brought in $77.4 billion during its first year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and a full repeal for 2021 may cost up to $88.7 billion, and more going forward. Plus, Republicans have mostly supported the cap.

While the so-called SALT Caucus, a group of bipartisan lawmakers pushing for repeal, say the limit hurts middle-class families, opponents say a change may primarily help the wealthy.

More than 96% of the benefit may flow to the top 20% of earners, according to the Tax Policy Center, affecting only 9% of American households.

In the meantime, several high-tax states now offer SALT cap workarounds for pass-through business owners, allowing some companies to skip the deduction limit by using a state levy to cover some of the owner's state income taxes.

Excerpt from:

Bigger state and local tax deductions still possible as Democrats grapple over spending plan - CNBC

Authorities are investigating a lynching threat received by Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Ross Wilburn after he wrote an op-ed criticising former President Donald Trump.

Mr Wilburn, the state partys first Black chairman, accused Iowa Republicans of putting their loyalty to Mr Trump ahead of Iowans needs in an opinion piece published in the Des Moines Register.

The entire Republican Party of Iowa is welcoming Trump with open arms proving once again that they have completely surrendered themselves to a man who not only openly attacked the foundations of our democracy, but also has shown disdain for our Constitution, and failed to help the American people when we needed it most, Mr Wilburn wrote.

After the guest column was published on 8 October, Mr Wilburn received three threatening messages, one of which was a voice mail threatening to lynch him, and all using explicit and offensive language, he told reporters, according toThe Washington Post.

The n-word was used multiple times, Mr Wilburn said. The voice mails and the email made reference to my writing about former president Trump and made specific references to my comments regarding Trumps actions on 6 January. This led me to believe that they had read my op-ed.

Local authorities are investigating the abusive messages and Mr Wilburn said he will press charges if those behind them are identified.

I know it can be challenging, difficult to sometimes find folks that are sending things either directly or through restricted accounts or anonymously, he said. But thats what I intend to do.

Iowa Republican Senators Charles E. Grassley and Joni Ernst condemned the threats on Twitter. Ms Ernst said that the perpetrators should be held accountable, while Mr Grassley posted: Racism & threats of violence are never acceptable. the threat against Iowa Dem party chair Wilburn is being investigated & those responsible should b held accountable We ought to b able to hv civil/respectful political discussions in this country w our neighbors.

Mr Wilburn responded to Mr Grassleys comments, saying: If Senator Grassley is going to be more consistent with that in the future, then I think that would be important for him to do as a leader in his party.

He added that he appreciated the messages of support he received, but that it should not be the norm for officials to receive hateful messages.

Go here to read the rest:

Ross Wilburn: Democrat threatened with lynching after criticising Trump - The Independent

To win over their most centrist members, the Democrats will need to fit all their wishes into the smaller box.

Family proposals ~$1.9 trillion

Climate proposals ~$0.6 trillion

Child care and

universal preschool

Renewable energy tax credits

Clean

electricity

program

Clean air, water and

energy efficiency

Child and dependent

care tax credit;

caregiver expenses

New federal Medicaid program

Expanded

premium

tax credits

Medicaid

funding

for home

health

care

Medicare vision, hearing

and dental benefits

Health proposals ~$1.0 trillion

Other proposals ~$1.1 trillion

in spending increases

and tax cuts over 10 years

Family proposals ~$1.9 trillion

Climate proposals ~$0.6 trillion

Child care and

universal preschool

Renewable energy

tax credits

Clean

electricity

program

Clean air, water and

energy efficiency

Child and dependent

care tax credit;

caregiver expenses

New federal Medicaid program

Expanded

premium

tax credits

Medicaid

funding

for home

health

care

Medicare vision, hearing

and dental benefits

Health proposals ~$1.0 trillion

Other proposals ~$1.1 trillion

in spending increases

and tax cuts over 10 years

Family proposals

~$1.9 trillion

Climate proposals

~$0.6 trillion

Child care and

universal

preschool

Renewable

energy

tax credits

Clean electricity program

Clean air,

water and

energy

efficiency

Earned-

income

tax credit

Child care

tax credit;

caregivers

New federal

Medicaid program

Medicare vision,

hearing and dental

benefits

Health proposals

~$1.0 trillion

Other proposals

~$1.1 trillion

in spending increases

and tax cuts over 10 years

Source: Cost estimates compiled by Don Schneider, Cornerstone Macro

As Democrats in Congress debate how to pare back their big social spending bill to a total budget increase of less than $2 trillion over a decade they have even further to go than it may appear.

The Congressional Budget Office has said it is unclear when it will provide official estimates for the entire proposal written by the House last month. So weve turned to what several budget experts say are the best available estimates of the cost of everything in the bill, compiled by Don Schneider, an economist at Cornerstone Macro. The figures, detailed in the tables below, show that lawmakers starting point is far higher than the $3.5 trillion number they had used to describe the package initially.

All the new spending and new tax cuts and credits in the bill add up to closer to $4.7 trillion over a decade, the result of an ambitious agenda and some optimistic thinking about the price tag. The target number President Biden discussed with lawmakers this week would be less than half as much, an effort to win the votes of reluctant centrist Democrats. Lawmakers have also proposed a series of tax increases and spending cuts to substantially offset those costs.

Wherever possible, Mr. Schneider used numbers from the official scorekeepers the C.B.O. or the Joint Committee on Taxation. Some of the other figures were provided by House committee fact sheets or were estimated based on official scores of similar legislation.

Mr. Schneider was a Republican congressional staffer before taking his current job, and he personally has concerns about the budgetary effects of the legislation. But he said his estimates were not intended to exaggerate the costs of the bill, but to help investors understand the possible effects of the legislation.

Im serving market participants, he said. This is my best guess of what it is.

Democratic leaders have signaled that programs to help children and families will be a major focus of the legislation, and the House bill includes a number of such policies. The child tax credit was written as a near-universal policy of monthly payments to parents with children for four additional years. A program would subsidize child care for families that use it. Another would help states establish pre-kindergarten classes in public schools. The legislation would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide paid leave to workers when they need to miss work because of childbirth or family illness.

OFFICIAL ESTIMATES IN GREEN

Provision

See original here:

The Democrats Have a Lot of Cutting to Do - The New York Times

To get around Republican obstruction, Democrats are using a fast-track process known as reconciliation that shields legislation from a filibuster. That would allow it to pass the 50-50 Senate on a simple majority vote, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tiebreaking vote.

But it would still require the support of every Democratic senator and nearly every one of their members in the House. Democratic leaders and White House officials have been haggling behind the scenes to nail down an agreement that could satisfy both Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema, who have been reluctant to publicly detail which proposals they want to see scaled back or jettisoned.

Congressional leaders aim to finish their negotiations in time to act on the reconciliation bill by the end of October, when they also hope to move forward on another of Mr. Bidens top priorities, a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that would be the largest investment in roads, bridges, broadband and other physical public works in more than a decade.

As with any bill of such historic proportions, not every member will get everything he or she wants, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, wrote to Democrats in a letter ahead of the chambers return on Monday. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices made by each and every one of you.

It remains unclear which sacrifices will have to be made, with lawmakers still at odds over the best strategy for paring down the plan, let alone how to structure specific programs. The most potent plan to replace coal and gas-fired plants with wind, nuclear and solar energy, for example, is likely to be dropped because of Mr. Manchins opposition, but White House and congressional staff are cobbling together alternatives to cut emissions that could be added to the plan.

Liberals remain insistent that the bill initially conceived as a cradle-to-grave social safety net overhaul on par with the Great Society of the 1960s include as many programs as possible, while more moderate lawmakers have called for large investments in just a few key initiatives.

In the midst of the impasse, rank-and-file lawmakers have been left to return home to their constituents to try to promote a still-unfinished product that is shrouded in the mystery of private negotiations, all while explaining why a Democratic-controlled government has yet to deliver on promises they campaigned on.

See the article here:

Democrats Work to Sell an Unfinished Bill - The New York Times

WASHINGTON Three Washington lawmakers are at the center of a debate among Democrats that will decide the fate of the ambitious national agenda they campaigned on in 2020 and perhaps the partys fortunes in 2022.

Sen. Patty Murray played a central role in crafting the Build Back Better Act, which would raise taxes on large companies and the richest Americans to pay for a range of social programs aimed at lowering living costs for the rest of the country, including expanded health care, subsidized child care and tuition-free community college.

Its going to be a really big deal, Murray said in an interview. Were going to fundamentally reshape the American economy so we can level the playing field for working families, and we can do it by making sure that the very wealthiest and giant corporations pay their fair share, so that everyone can be successful.

But before they can do that, Democrats have to pare the legislation down from a cost of $3.5 trillion to a figure closer to $2 trillion to appease two centrist senators.

That reality presents them with a tough choice: fund all the programs they promised voters, but for just a few years, or jettison parts of the bill to fund their top priorities for the longer term.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who represents most of Seattle and chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has pushed for the first option. In an interview, she said that because the bills provisions aim to help different groups of people expanding Medicare coverage for seniors, for instance, and cutting costs for college students dropping entire programs would mean breaking promises made to voters.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, whose district stretches from the Seattle suburbs to the Canadian border, heads the moderate New Democrat Coalition and has advocated the fewer, longer approach. If Republicans take control of either the House or Senate next year, she said in an interview, they could let programs with only short-term funding expire before they see their full impact.

The Progressive Caucus and New Democrats each count 95 members in the House, evenly splitting most of the partys slim, 220-seat majority. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has struggled to take a side.

After writing in a letter to all House Democrats on Monday that her members have overwhelmingly advised her to do fewer things well so that we can still have a transformative impact, Pelosi told reporters the next day her party may have to opt for short-term funding and she hoped they wouldnt drop any provisions.

After a late-September standoff between progressives and centrist Democrats forced Pelosi to postpone a vote on the Build Back Better Act, the speaker set an Oct. 31 deadline to vote on both that legislation and the bipartisan infrastructure package the Senate passed in August.

But Murray, the third-ranking Democrat in the upper chamber, shrugged that deadline off as a House-imposed mandate and said shes focused on getting the best package possible, with the strongest investments in the things that I care about.

The challenge Murray, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders face is that each member of their party cares about different priorities.

After Biden presented his sweeping agenda in two sets of proposals last spring the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan lawmakers turned them into two bills. But instead of dividing the issues like the White House did, a group of moderate Democratic and Republican senators carved out provisions that could garner the 10 GOP votes needed to reach the 60-vote majority needed to pass most legislation in the Senate.

That bipartisan bill passed the Senate including $550 billion in new spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure and with just one shot at bypassing a Senate GOP filibuster via special budget rules, Democrats piled the rest of Bidens agenda into the Build Back Better Act.

All 50 Democratic senators need to support a bill to use that once-a-year process, known as budget reconciliation, and opposition to the original $3.5 trillion price tag from Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia has forced the party to compromise on a lower number.

In its original form, the sprawling bill would provide two years of free community college, plus extra college funding through the Pell Grant program. It would guarantee universal pre-kindergarten and subsidies that ensure no family spends more than 7% of their income on child care. It would expand Medicare to cover hearing, vision and dental care and expand Medicaid coverage in states that havent already done so under the Affordable Care Act.

It would extend the monthly child tax credit payments of $250 to $300 per child, set to expire at the end of the year, that Democrats enacted through the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package they passed in March. It would lower prescription drug prices, partly by letting Medicare negotiate prices for the first time, and guarantee 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave each year.

Other parts of the bill aim to combat climate change, including tax incentives to encourage clean energy production and electric vehicle adoption. The sheer number of provisions has posed a messaging challenge for Democrats: How do they explain it, let alone drum up public support for such a wide-ranging piece of legislation?

Murray, who chairs the Senate committee charged with health, education and labor issues, said her must-have priorities are affordable child care, paid family leave, lower health care costs and provisions to counter climate change.

Of course, everyone is advocating for what they feel strongest about now, Murray said, but she emphasized that none of that matters unless they craft a bill all 50 Senate Democrats will vote for.

The New Democrat Coalition has its own four-part set of priorities: Extend the child tax credit, create jobs through economic development grants, go big on climate by cutting carbon emissions, and lower health care costs by expanding Medicaid to cover more people and making health insurance subsidies enacted in the March relief bill permanent.

The Progressive Caucus has put forward a broader set of priorities, including investing in affordable housing and the care economy, combating climate change and lowering drug prices, using the money Medicare saves to expand health care.

The progressives have also sought to include sweeping immigration reform in the bill, but the Senate parliamentarian a sort of congressional referee ruled that those changes fall outside the scope of the reconciliation process, which applies only to budget-related provisions.

Democrats have proposed paying for the new spending by rolling back some of the tax cuts Republicans passed in 2017, when the GOP used the same budget reconciliation process to get around Democratic opposition.

Their plan would raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 26%, still below the 35% rate that applied until 2018, with lower rates for businesses that earn less than $10 million a year. It would tax capital gains at a higher rate, especially for people who earn more than $5 million a year, and raise the income tax rate for those making at least $400,000 a year.

Those proposals would generate about $2 trillion in revenue over 10 years, which means if the Democrats choose to fund programs for just a few years, they would need to find other ways to raise revenue or finance the programs with borrowed money that raises the federal deficit but Jayapal said shes not worried about finding ways to pay for the programs.

We dont suffer from a lack of resources on the revenue side, she said. We suffer from a lack of will to actually tax people fairly.

The other downside to short-term funding, DelBene said, is that if Republicans win control of either the House or Senate in 2022 a scenario polling and precedent suggest is likely Democrats could be forced to watch parts of their bill expire before they have their full impact, leaving a program halfway done.

I think folks want to see governance work, DelBene said. They want to see us make decisions and have policy that is stable, that they can rely on.

To make her point, DelBene cited the child tax credit, which she played a lead role in transforming from a $2,000-per-child benefit available only to those who earn enough to owe that much in federal taxes into monthly payments totaling $3,000 to $3,600 a year for all but the wealthiest parents. A Columbia University study found the first round of payments, sent in July, lifted 3 million children out of poverty, but projected a far greater impact if the payments continue for years.

Meanwhile, Jayapal favors front-loading as many benefits as possible, in hopes that people will understand that government has their back, and we can look at the extension of those programs later.

One of the crises of democracy that were facing is that people dont believe that government is going to stand up for them, she said. The way to counter that is to show them that government really can do those things, and so were building towards a place where voters actually see the utility of government.

While she admitted her approach could let Republicans dismantle her priorities in a few years, Jayapal said she hoped the GOP would run into the same problem they faced when they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a program that proved too popular to undo once Americans saw its benefits.

If Democrats dont do all the things the party campaigned on, Jayapal said, Then people are going to continue to have no faith in us because we promised something (and) we never delivered. They gave us the House, the Senate and the White House, we still didnt deliver.

Despite their different approaches, Jayapal, DelBene and Murray described the same goal: a federal government that more actively transfers wealth from the biggest businesses and the richest Americans to make life easier for the rest of the nation.

I want people to wake up in the morning and feel differently about their lives, their livelihoods and their opportunities, Jayapal said. I mean, to know that governments got their back and they can live a dignified life with opportunity and not suffer every day.

See the rest here:

Three Washington Democrats at center of crafting bill to 'fundamentally reshape the American economy' - The Spokesman Review