Monthly Archives: September 2021

Theres a growing realization among Democrats that their plans for a $3.5 trillion spending package to reshape the nations social safety net and to tackle climate change will have to be slimmed down because of anxious centrists worried about the 2022 midterms.

Democrats by and large feel confident that President BidenJoe BidenFBI releases first Sept. 11 document following Biden executive order Afghan pilots to be transferred to US base after fleeing to Uzbekistan: WSJ NATO head says alliance signed off on US withdrawal from Afghanistan MOREs ambitious human infrastructure agenda has strong public support and that a majority of Americans favor raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to help pay for it.

But theres also a recognition that moderate Democrats in swing states and districts need to show theyre shaping the emerging reconciliation package.

And a part of that process may be slimming down the package from the $3.5 trillion goal set last month by the Senate- and House-passed budget resolutions.

Most times when you face these situations there have to be some changes made in order to get the votes, especially when here in the [Senate] chamber its tied and only the vice president can break the tie, said former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who presided over the budget reconciliation process in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats passed sweeping health care reform legislation.

You probably will have to shave this back some, he said of the $3.5 trillion proposal outlined in the budget resolutions passed earlier this summer.

I suspect there are going to have to be some changes in order to get the votes to pass it, he added. Biden has himself said that these things should be paid for. He said that very clearly and he said it repeatedly.

The closer you get to actually paying for it, the better the chance you have of getting the votes.

Some centrist Democratic strategists are already warning that the size of the human infrastructure bill needs to be substantially curtailed to avoid a political disaster in the 2022 midterm elections.

Youve got all these Democrats in the center who are quietly saying I dont want to support $3.5 trillion because who wants to run on that given the current climate? Have you seen some of the recent polls coming out of the states? said one strategist.

By battling with progressives over the size of the package, moderates can insulate themselves from Republican claims that their party has been taken over by the far left.

Another factor is Bidens declining approval rating.

A Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll Friday showed Biden with a 47 percent national approval rating and a 46 percent national disapproval rate.

A Civiqs tracking poll this week showed Bidens approval ratings in several battleground states Arizona, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina trailing his disapproval ratings by 10 points to 14 points.

Two of the toughest Democratic votes to corral in the Senate belong to Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSunday shows preview: Biden issues new vaccine mandates; House committee marks up .5T reconciliation bill ATF nominee's fall is just latest defeat for gun control advocates On The Money The Democratic divide on taxes MORE (W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaOn The Money Biden launches vaccine crackdown The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Democrats face headwinds on .5 trillion plan, debt ceiling Democratic leaders betting Manchin will back down in spending fight MORE (Ariz.), who have both said in recent weeks, they will not support a $3.5 trillion package.

Moderate Democrats in the House such as Rep. Stephanie MurphyStephanie MurphyCentrist House Democrats unveil rival proposal to lower drug prices LIVE COVERAGE: Ways and Means begins Day 2 on .5T package Senate, House Democrats split over taxes in .5T package MORE (D-Fla.) are also threatening to vote "no."

Former Rep. Ron Klink (Pa.), a centrist Democrat who represented a Republican-leaning district in western Pennsylvania, says there are other moderate Democratic lawmakers besides Manchin and Sinema who are balking at the $3.5 trillion price tag.

Theyre going to go back and forth, he predicted about the upcoming negotiations over the size of the package. There are other senators, too, that are just saying, wait, this is too much, this is too big.

Klink, however, is urging jittery Democrats not to run away from Bidens infrastructure agenda.

He warns that ducking for political cover was a fatal mistake made by moderates during the 2009 debate over the Affordable Care Act, which was followed by a landslide Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections.

You have to sell your constituents on what it is that youre doing and why youre doing what youre doing, he said.

Faced with mounting Republican criticism over tax increases that will be part of the reconciliation package, the White House is emphasizing the benefits for the middle class, stressingits desire to enact tax cuts for daycare, health care and working families with children.

Klink said Democrats also need to make the case that floods, drought and fires that have devastated the nation show the pressing need for more infrastructure investment.

But Klink acknowledges its a safe bet the total size of the spending bill will fall below $3.5 trillion, though likely not as low as the $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion goal that Manchin has floated as alternatives.

I dont think it will be $3.5 trillion but I think it will be much closer to that than $1.5 trillion, he said.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard NealRichard Edmund NealHouse panel puts forth solar, environmental justice tax credits On The Money The Democratic divide on taxes LIVE COVERAGE: Ways and Means begins Day 2 on .5T package MORE (D-Mass.) made an important disclosure Thursday evening when he told reporters that the revenue-raising package coming out his committee will raise well less than what is needed to fully offset Democratic leaders official $3.5 trillion spending goal.

Asked if his package of revenue raisers would reach $3.5 trillion, Neal quickly replied: Oh, no, no. No, thats not at the moment what were talking about.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiBidens, former presidents mark 9/11 anniversary House Democrats propose making permanent expanded ObamaCare subsidies Democrats make case to Senate parliamentarian for 8 million green cards MORE (D-Calif.) on Wednesday tacitly acknowledged the final package is likely to come in under $3.5 trillion by characterizing that number as a ceiling.

I dont know what the number will be. We are marking at $3.5 trillion. Were not going above that, she told reporters.

Some Democrats now say it was inevitable that the $3.5 trillion number was going to slip, even though it already represents a major concession by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie SandersBernie SandersSunday shows preview: Biden issues new vaccine mandates; House committee marks up .5T reconciliation bill By defeating Newsom recall, pro-choice women would send a powerful message How Gavin Newsom fought back against the recall MORE (I-Vt.) and other progressives, who initially pushed for a $6 trillion budget reconciliation spending target.

I dont know what the final numbers going to be. I always felt it was going to be less than $3.5 [trillion,] said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, and a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerBidens, former presidents mark 9/11 anniversary Why is Biden hesitating to challenge China as East Asia's major trade partner? Retail group backs minimum corporate tax, increased IRS enforcement MORE (D-N.Y.).

But Kessler argued that the top-line revenue number that Neal says he will unveil this weekend wont necessarily constrain the size of the reconciliation package.

The budget reconciliation instructions, the budget resolution, basically says Ways and Means has to raise enough money to pay for what Ways and Means is going to spend, he said, pointing out that offsets can come from other committees.

Even so, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are Congresss two tax-writing committees and are expected to come up with the bulk ofwaysto pay for items in the reconciliation package.

Frank Clemente, the executive director for Americans for Tax Fairness, raised concerns earlier this week that the House tax reform bill will wind up raising far less than whats needed to offset the $3.5 trillion spending goal.

Based on my back of the envelope estimates of what's been reported that House Democratsare considering, their revenue target is much too conservative, he told The Hill.

Read the original:

Democrats see $3.5T spending goal is slipping away | TheHill - The Hill

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa Just over 20 years ago, Tom Vilsack became the first Democrat elected governor of this state in 30 years and only the fifth Democrat to hold the office in the 20th century.

He won narrowly the first time, then easily the second time. He governed for most of his eight years as a heartland Democrat, served as the head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, then decided to run for his partys nomination for president.

He said the results of the 2006 midterm elections, in which centrist House and Senate Democrats ran and won on a shared values campaign message, opened the door for a guy like him.

What he missed is that those voters were actually angry at Republicans, not necessarily excited about Democrats. He also missed that the voters who gave Democrats their big win that year were on the cusp of being kicked out of their party in favor of a more progressive coalition.

Vilsack's presidential campaign never really got off the ground in 2008. By 2010, all of those gains Democrats earned through the shared-values message, crafted by Democratic strategist Steve McMahon and promoted through farm radio channels all over the country in 2006, had been wiped out.

Vilsack would go on to serve as secretary of Agriculture for the duration of the Obama administration, the same position in which he now serves under President Joe Biden. Both times, despite a coalition of progressive environmental organizations launching grassroots campaigns to pressure senators to vote against him, he was overwhelmingly supported by the Senate.

Biden's nomination of Vilsack illustrates two points. First, it shows that the bench for heartland agricultural Democrats must be pretty thin not to be able to find anyone else except the guy who did it before. Second, Democrats have to ask themselves if they will cede control to loud progressive activists who make up a slim percentage of the population. Every presidency they have won and every majority they have earned included values voters.

Biden would not have earned slim wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan without them. Neither would House candidates such as Conor Lamb. Both men said all of the right things to win their races narrowly.

Yet pressures from their progressive wings affect how they govern and how they vote.

There is a rodeo going on here at the Iowa Equestrian Center at Kirkwood on this warm sunny day. When I last interviewed Vilsack during his tenure in the Obama administration, he said voters like the ones who work the farms and live here in Cedar Rapids need more representation in Washington. They have lost their clout, he said.

He was right. Rural Democrats in Washington are going by the way of the dinosaurs, and that is not good for a healthy party.

Vilsack understood that rural America is where our greatest source of food, water, energy, fuel, and jobs, and the place where a disproportionate number of our servicemembers come from. These voters are extremely relevant because of all their contributions to the nation's well-being.

If the Democratic Party continues to lose these voters' trust and support, which they have bled consistently since the 2000 presidential election, they will not be able to win presidential races or congressional majorities.

It doesnt matter that the progressives have the loudest megaphone. They are a long way from having the ability to win elections without the very voters they demonize, shame, and ostracize.

More:

Democrats need the very centrists they demonize - Washington Examiner

The Finance Committee is also leaning toward changing the rules that large business partnerships have used to avoid taxation and evade Internal Revenue Service audits. Congress drafted the rules when partnerships were dominated by small businesses, like doctors offices. But increasingly, partnerships are large companies or subsidiaries of major corporations, arrayed in complex, overlapping configurations to allow their owners to shift profits, losses and deductions to evade taxes.

Some 70 percent of partnership income now goes to the top 1 percent of earners, and the tax minimization methods have become so complex that ordinary I.R.S. agents are not allowed to conduct certain audits without the assistance of top-flight I.R.S. lawyers.

The constant theme running through our tax code is, paying taxes is mandatory for working people, but optional for wealthy investors and mega corporations. Thats especially true when it comes to pass-through businesses and partnerships, the preferred tax avoidance tools for those at the top, Mr. Wyden said.

To change all that, Democrats want to constrain partnerships from gaming the system. Under the new rules, if two partners who were members of a single corporate group sold a shared asset, the profit would have to be divided equally, not parceled out disproportionately to maximize tax advantages. Similarly, partnership debt, which allows partners to take deductions and claim cash distributions, could not be shuffled from partner to partner to reduce their tax liabilities.

Those changes, without any increase in tax rates, would raise $172 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congresss official scorekeeper on tax matters.

Though it would raise less revenue, about $100 billion, the tax on buybacks could be the more far-reaching measure. Over the past decade, Apple has been the king of the stock buyback, spending $423 billion to retire its stock. Microsoft, in a distant second place, spent nearly $129 billion.

Some Democrats have favored setting the tax so high that buybacks would make no economic sense. But Democratic tax aides said on Thursday that they were trying to balance the desire to curtail stock buybacks with the need to raise revenue. At the very least, a 2 percent tax on buybacks could encourage companies to use excess cash to pay higher dividends, which shareholders pay taxes on.

See more here:

Democrats Eye Taxing Stock Buybacks and Partnerships - The New York Times

FatCamera | E+ | Getty Images

It's a situation that appears incongruous: Congressional Democrats want to expand Medicare's benefits while a trust fund that supports the program is facing insolvency.

Indeed, some Republican lawmakers have seized on that looming problem as a reason to oppose a proposal to add dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare. The provision is included in Democrats' 10-year, $3.5 trillion spending plan that would expand the social safety net and battle climate change, among other policy goals.

"Democrats are ramming through a reckless new expansion of Medicare just as it's a few years from bankruptcy," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, in prepared remarks at a House Ways and Means Committee session on Thursday as debate began on portions of Democrats' massive legislative package.

Because of how Medicare is structured, adding dental, vision and hearing coverage would have little impact on the trust fund that's forecast to be insolvent beginning in 2026.

"In short, we're largely talking about different pots of money," said David Lipschutz, associate director and senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

Medicare has about 62.8 million beneficiaries, the majority of whom are at least age 65 or older. That's the age when most Americans must enroll unless they meet an exclusion (such as having qualifying health insurance elsewhere).

Here's a look at more retirement news.

Basic Medicare consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (outpatient care coverage). There also is Part D, which is prescription drug coverage. About 44% of beneficiaries choose to get those benefits through an Advantage Plan (Part C), an option offered by private insurance companies that may include limited coverage for dental, vision and hearing.

In simple terms, it's the Part A trust fund that is facing a shortfall beginning in 2026, according to the latest trustees report. Unless Congress intervenes before then, the fund would only be able to pay roughly 91% of claims under Part A beginning that year.

That trust fund gets most of its revenue from dedicated taxes paid by employees and employers.

Generally, workers pay 1.45% via payroll tax withholdings (although an additional 0.9% is imposed on income above $200,000 for single taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples). Employers also contribute 1.45% on behalf of each worker. Self-employed individuals essentially pay both the employer and employee share.

The expansion of benefits under Part B would have no direct impact on the solvency challenges facing the Part A hospital insurance trust fund.

Tricia Neuman

Executive director for the Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy

Meanwhile, Part B which the expanded benefits would fall under gets its funding from monthly premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries as well as from the federal government's general revenue. Same goes for Part D. And each year, premiums and revenue allocations are adjusted to reflect anticipated spending and ensure there's no shortfall.

"The expansion of benefits under Part B would have no direct impact on the solvency challenges facing the Part A hospital insurance trust fund," said Tricia Neuman, executive director for the Kaiser Family Foundation's program on Medicare policy.

Nevertheless, she said, adding dental, vision and hearing would have an effect on overall Medicare spending. A 2019 congressional report, based on a bill that would have added those benefits, estimated the cost to be $358 billion.

However, also included in Democrats' current spending plan is the goal of allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug manufacturers which currently is prohibited as a potential way to help pay for the expanded benefits.

"The prescription drug savings would be used to offset these new costs but there are a lot of competing spending priorities for the savings that are on the table," Neuman said.

The Democrats' massive legislative package is in the early stages of being debated. In addition to adding Medicare benefits, some Democrats want to include a lower eligibility age for Medicare (currently age 65).

Other health-care-related goals include extending the expanded premium subsidies for health-care insurance through the Affordable Care Act's public marketplace now in effect for just 2021 and 2022 and, in states that have not expanded Medicaid, providing coverage for eligible individuals.

It remains unclear whether the legislation that ends up being voted on will include everything being debated or whether current details of various provisions will end up modified. For the expanded Medicare benefits, the House measure would implement vision and hearing coverage in 2022 and 2023, respectively, while dental benefits would not begin until 2028.

"This is the closest we've come since the inception of the program for adding these benefits," said Lipschutz, of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

"There's a sense that if we don't take advantage of this opportunity, another won't come along for a long time," he said.

As for the insolvency issues with the Part A trust fund, there are several options that could help remedy the problem, Neuman said. For instance, Medicare could cut payments to providers (hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc.) or to Advantage Plans. Or, cost-sharing for beneficiaries i.e., deductibles or copays could be increased.

Alternatively, additional funding sources could be identified. That could include ensuring certain taxpayers can't dodge the Medicare employment tax which has been proposed by Democrats as a way to increase revenue or redirecting other taxes to the trust fund.

"None of the policy options are politically appealing, but at some point Congress will need to address this issue to be sure that beneficiaries can get benefits to which they're entitled and providers get paid," Neuman said.

Go here to read the rest:

Medicare's trust fund faces insolvency in 2026. Here's how that squares with Democrats' efforts to expand the health insurance program - CNBC

House Freedom Caucus Chair Representative Andy Biggs at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 31, 2021.Photo: Alex Wong (Getty Images)

House Republicans are furious that their Democratic colleagues investigating the failed, Donald Trump-incited insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 are seeking data on people tied to the riot and now they have a response: No, u.

Late last month, a Democratic-led committee asked 35 tech and telecom companies to preserve records of certain individuals involved in or linked to the riot, including Trump, his family, and Republican members of Congress. As first reported by Fox Business, GOP Representative Andy Biggs has now led several House Republicans in writing a letter to 14 firms demanding that they, in turn, preserve phone records and other data from 16 Democrats so that future Congresses can investigate alleged infractions.

According to Business Insider, the list of Democrats includes Vice President Kamala Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Representative Eric Swalwell. Recipients of the letters included Amazon, AOL, Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Snap, Inc., T-Mobile, US Cellular, Verizon, Signal, Telegram, and Twitter.

There has been vehement opposition to the commission from Republicans. They successfully blocked the Senate from holding its own investigation, and the top Republican in the House, Kevin McCarthy, threatened to strip GOP members of their committee assignments if they participated in the House inquiry. Just two Republican representatives have joined it.

Republicans have already lobbed vague threats of reprisal at companies that choose to comply with the Jan. 6 committees data requests. McCarthy claimed handing over the data would be a federal crime and vowed the firms could be subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States under a future GOP majority. McCarthy never specified what supposed law the companies would be breaking, or any kind of mechanism whatsoever by which the Republicans could make good on their threats of revenge.

G/O Media may get a commission

Experts interviewed by the Washington Post agreed that while there may be federal laws preventing the companies from handing over records voluntarily, no such law exists that would hinder them from preserving them in anticipation of a forthcoming subpoena. A former lawyer for the office of the House counsel, Mike Stern, told the paper the companies would have to comply with those subpoenas when theyre served: Even if there is arguably a competing legal obligation or privilege that might trump the subpoena, I know of no principle that requires any subpoena recipient to risk contempt to protect the interests of their customers.

In the letter, House Republicans doubled down on the claim that the preservation requests were illegal under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, adding neither the Committee nor you have the legal authority to provide those records. The letter continued that having said that, they want the records of Democrats to be preserved. This all obviously makes perfect sense.

Republicans have good reason to be anxious about the data requests. Some 147 GOP members of the House and Senate voted to refuse to recognize the 2020 election results, effectively declaring their support for baseless conspiracy theories about voter fraud and installing Trump for a second term. Those votes happened alongside the Jan. 6 riot, when a swarm of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results. Every single one of the Republicans named by CNN as part of the data-preservation requests voted against recognizing the election, and its clear the Democrats on the commission want to investigate their actions around the time of the attack:

... Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Paul Gosar also of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Jody Hice of Georgia and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

McCarthy has particular reason to be worried. CNN previously reported that he called Trump in the middle of the assault on the Capitol, urging him to call off the crowds, to which Trump responded Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. McCarthy reportedly shot back, Who the fuck do you think youre talking to? The House leader has since packed away his spine, never to be seen again.

More:

House Republicans Say Democrats' Data Requests Are Illegal, and They Want a Piece of the Action - Gizmodo

A group of four Democratic congresswomen on Friday introduced a resolution condemning racism in the U.S. government and outlining relief for victims of racism 20 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Ilhan Omar or Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Judy Chu of California announced the resolution on Friday evening to acknowledge the "hate, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia that Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities across America continue to experience two decades after" 9/11, according to a press release.

"We must fully condemn all manifestations and expressions of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, scapegoating, and ethnic or religious bigotry while also finally acknowledging the climate of hate that Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities have experienced in the two decades since September 11, 2001," the four congresswomen said in a statement.

Policemen and firemen run away from the huge dust cloud caused as the World Trade Center's Tower One collapses after terrorists crashed two hijacked planes into the twin towers, September 11, 2001 in New York City. (Photo by Jose Jimenez/Primera Hora/Getty Images)

They continued: "As we acknowledge that our own government implemented harmful policies that unfairly profiled and targeted Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities, we must also celebrate that these very communities have met these challenges with unwavering courage, strength, compassion, and resilience while uniting in the aftermath to advocate for civil and human rights work which continues to this day to benefit all Americans."

OBAMA 9/11 STATEMENT: AMERICA'S BEST CITIZENS STEP FORWARD DURING NATION'S WORST MOMENTS

Jayapal told Vox in an audio interview that after watching the 9/11 attacks on TV that she immediately thought, "What does this mean for people like me?"

"I had just become a U.S. citizen, but I think I was still very clear that I was an immigrant, that I was brown, that I was a woman," she said. "I had flashed through my head all the times in U.S. history where immigrants were targeted in very difficult times going back to the internment and other such times and I felt like everything was going to change for somebody that looked like me. That was the overwhelming thought in my head."

Less than two full months after 9/11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in what was praised as an effort to improve national security by giving federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to citizen's private records that the government hoped could help them find prospective terrorists. The law was later criticized for giving officials too much surveillance power over everyday Americans.

The Democrats do not name the PATRIOT Act in their press release but note that the FBI "and immigration authorities arrested and detained as many as 1,200 Muslims immediately after the September 11 attack, and none of these special interest detained people were ultimately indicted for terrorist activity."

9/11 REMEMBRANCE: NAVY SEAL WHO KILLED BIN LADEN WARNS ABOUT AMERICA'S GREATEST THREAT NOW

Between 2003 and 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued nearly 193,000 National Security Letters (NSLs), or documents requesting someone's personal information, but the agency only made one terror-related conviction based on those NSLs, according to the ACLU. The act, or Section 215, expired in 2020.

The new resolution calls for creating an "interagency task force" to review government surveillance policies targetting specific communities; holding hearings to discuss the findings of the task force; provide resources to organizations supporting victims of hate; and calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Health, and the National Science Foundation to work together to determine the impact of government targeting and profiling.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The measure has support from dozens of local and national civil rights and activist organizations.

"This resolution is a critical step in acknowledging the government targeting of our communities which predates 9/11 but exponentially grew afterwards. As we witness the devastating impacts of the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress must support community-based organizations who are leading movements to fundamentally shift the foreign and domestic policies at the root of this violence," Fatema Ahmad, executive director of Muslim Justice League, said in a Friday statement.

The rest is here:

Democrats introduce resolution condemning racism in government 20 years after 9/11 attacks - Fox News