Mediaboss Marketing

The crowd at a Trump rally on April 29 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Republican coalition is changing. First, the GOP is in danger of losing college-educated suburbanites who voted only reluctantly for Donald Trump in 2016, or who split their tickets by voting against Trump while voting for GOP congressional candidates. The close shave in Georgias 6th Congressional District demonstrates that Republicans cant take these voters for granted, especially if Democrats recruit candidates who cant be so easily caricatured as mini-Pelosis. Second, the party has gained the tentative support of working-class populists, who backed Trump despite their misgivings about the GOPs anti-government rhetoric. That support helped make up for erosion among college-educated suburbanites in 2016, and its at least possible this trend could continue in the years to come.

I wouldnt count on it, though. Republicans find themselves in an enormously difficult position. Theyre dependent on both better-off voters who are allergic to Trumps populism and hard-pressed voters who badly want Trump to live up to his populist promises yet are increasingly skeptical that hell do anything of the sort. To win back the tax-averse upper-middle class, Republicans might double down on calls to shrink government, which would risk repelling working-class populists. To consolidate their gains among working- and lower-middle-class voterswho worry far more about the strength of the safety net than they do about their federal tax billstheyd presumably need to soften their anti-government stance, which of course would risk alienating the tax-averse upper-middle class. Think of this as a not-terribly-festive game of GOP Jenga.

Democrats increasingly live in rich states while Republicans increasingly live in poor ones.

For years, it was the Democratic coalition that was ideologically divided, and Democratic politicians who had to contort themselves to please liberals on the partys left and moderates on the partys right. Now, however, despite the internecine bickering during the 2016 primary and the recriminations after the general election, Democrats seem to have achieved a broad ideological consensus thats best described as a marriage of crusading social liberalism and faith in technocracy. Republicans, meanwhile, are still learning what it means to navigate their own ideological divisions. The GOPs leadership remains dominated by small-government conservatives, yet they find themselves bewildered by the fact that many of their new voters are adamantly opposed to the deep Medicaid cuts at the heart of the partys domestic policy agenda.

Somehow Republicans will need to reconcile this new divide. But how? In the latest issue of National Affairs, political sociologist Joshua T. McCabe makes the case for a red-state federalism that could fit the bill.

Before we turn to McCabes ingenious proposal, consider that whereas the GOP has long been the party of the rich and Democrats the party of the poor, both parties are now cross-class coalitions, with large numbers of voters in both the top and bottom thirds of the income distribution. So what separates the parties now? One difference is that Democrats increasingly live in rich states while Republicans increasingly live in poor ones.

Among the 10 states with the highest per capita income, only two of themresource-rich Alaska and North Dakotabacked Trump in 2016, and only seven Trump states are in the top half of the U.S. Just because Democrats tend to live in rich states doesnt mean the Democratic Party only represents rich people. Democratic states also tend to have higher levels of income inequality. Rich states, though, are better equipped to meet the needs of their poor citizens, because they have more fiscal capacity than poor statesthat is, at the very same tax rates, a rich state will be in a position to raise more tax revenue than a poor one. To have any hope of matching a rich states per capita social spending, a poor state would have to impose much higher taxes. And what happens to poor states that impose excessively high taxes? As time goes by, they risk experiencing a brain drain as their most capable citizens leave for greener pastures.

This is where McCabes red-state federalism comes in. The basic idea is that taxpayers should be treated equally whether they live in a rich or a poor region. By way of example, McCabe notes that taxpayers in Massachusetts pay roughly the same tax rates as those in Kansas, yet the same rate of taxation yields far more revenue for social spending in Massachusetts than it does in Kansas. One could argue that Massachusetts wealth is a product of its farsighted generosity and that Kansas relative poverty is a product of its shortsighted stinginess. If Kansas had the good sense to invest in public services, perhaps the state would be just as rich as Massachusetts. Theres another possibility, however. According to McCabe, the wealth of Massachusetts has less to do with the relative wisdom of todays residents than it is a product of the states good fortune in having a rich inheritance of educational institutions and accumulated wealth thats built up over centuries. Moreover, whereas income across rich and poor states formerly tended to converge as poor people from poor states moved to rich ones in search of opportunity, exclusionary zoning policies in rich states have made it much harder for poor people from poor states to find new homes in better-off areas.

The federal government does provide poor people in poor states with some assistance. Medicaid, for example, is one of several joint state-federal programs in which the federal government matches spending at the state level, and (except for the Medicaid-expansion population) the match is more generous for poor states than for rich states. Because rich states find it much easier to raise revenue than poor ones, however, they tend to be in a much better position to sustain higher spending levels, which in turn means theyre in a better position to receive higher levels of federal support.

To level the playing field between rich regions and poor regions, other federal democraciessuch as Canada and Australiaprovide equalization grants to regions with below-average levels of fiscal capacity. McCabe proposes a similar system of fiscal equalization for the U.S. First, hed eliminate the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a tax break that overwhelmingly benefits high-income households in rich regions. For example, McCabe notes that the SALT deduction is worth almost 11 times as much to the average beneficiary in high-fiscal-capacity Connecticut as it is in low-fiscal-capacity Tennessee. Eliminating the SALT deduction would yield enough revenue to finance an equalization grant that would bring the 27 states with below-average fiscal capacity halfway up to the average level. States could then use this new revenue to increase social spending or to lower their taxes to more competitive levels, as they see fit.

Fiscal equalization would go a long way toward making life better for poor people in poor states, as those poor states would no longer have to choose between funding basic services and imposing ruinously high tax rates. That leads us to why Republicans would be wise to embrace McCabes proposal. Whereas funding tax cuts for the rich by slashing services for the poor divides the new GOP coalition, fiscal equalization would unite the interests of upper-middle-class voters and working-class populists living in the same poor Republican states. Poor voters in poor states would get better services and rich voters in poor states would be able to keep their taxes low. Granted, not everyone would win from fiscal equalization. Rich voters in rich states like Connecticut and New Jersey would be the biggest losers. But from the perspective of the GOPs new cross-class coalition, its better that rich voters in rich (Democratic) states suffer than poor voters in poor (Republican) ones.

See the original post here:
How to Build a New Republican Coalition - Slate Magazine

A pregnant belly was almost a license to kill in the Granite State.

Natalia Deriabina/Thinkstock

Anti-abortion advocates often frame their arguments in terms of womens empowerment. But rarely do they go as far as New Hampshire Republicans recently did with a bill that would have given pregnant women impunity to commit murder.

Senate Bill 66 was intended to define a fetus past 20 weeks of gestation as a person in cases of murder or manslaughter. Proponents of such fetal homicide bills argue that they protect both pregnant women and their unborn children from violence, and provide recourse when fetuses are victims of reckless drivers, for example. But critics say they are designed to undermine abortion rights. They point out that such laws have ensnared women who experience miscarriages and who are suspected of trying to self-induce abortion. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states currently have some kind of feticide laws on the books.

New Hampshire Republicans tried to reassure critics by including exemptions designed to protect from prosecution doctors and women seeking abortions. The bills original language stated that any act committed by the pregnant woman or a doctor acting in his professional capacity wouldnt apply in cases of second-degree murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Unfortunately, any act implied, well, any act. The bill allows a pregnant woman to commit homicide without consequences, Republican representative J.R. Hoell told the Concord Monitor. Although that was never the intent, that is the clear reading of the language. *blooper sound effect*

The bill cleared the state Senate and the House before anyone noticed this fully dilated loophole. To be fair, lawyers consulted by the Monitor said that if the bill actually became law, the state would likely have been protected by existing legal language including the principle that laws cannot be read literally when such a reading would yield an absurd result. Still, its probably fair to assume that New Hampshire was mere weeks away from having an army of Kill Billstyle avenging mothers-to-be roaming the state with Uzis propped on top of their bulging bellies.

As a New Hampshire resident, I am happy to report that we have been spared this fate. On Thursday morning, the House passed a technical amendment that corrected the bills language to make sure pregnant women dont go around killing people, as one Democratic representative put it on the House floor on Thursday. The bill proceeds next to the desk of Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who has previously said he plans to sign SB66 into law.

Read more:
NH Republicans Accidentally Approved a Bill Allowing Pregnant Women to Commit Murder - Slate Magazine (blog)

I love owning a small business, but its not without its challenges. Finding affordable health care is one of those challenges.

Todd Mikkelson

My wife and I had a new baby at the same time we were starting our own business, so health care coverage was essential. If we hadnt had access to affordable coverage through Minnesota Care, one of us would have had to maintain other full-time employment with health-care benefits and our business would have never gotten off the ground.

Now President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are pushing through a plan that would take health care away from 23 million people including many of the 4 million newly insured small business owners, employees, and self-employed entrepreneurs like my wife and me. Instead of improving access and lowering costs, the GOP plan puts health care out of reach for many working families across Minnesota, and the House version jeopardizes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The plan (details of the Senate versionhave just been released) also slashes Medicaid by $834 billion, threatening the health care of 74 million Americans who rely on Medicaid every day and creating huge deficits in state budgets.

Through these drastic cuts to Medicaid and to the tax credits that make buying coverage affordable, the repeal plan would cause premiums to skyrocket and possibly trigger the collapse of the private market. The plan would give $664 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy and big corporations while forcing Minnesota small business owners back to a time when many of us couldnt afford coverage at all.

Whats bad for consumers and local businesses is bad for the economy. Any economist will tell you that when people have more money in their pockets, they can spend more at local businesses.

When small businesses struggle to keep their doors open, there are fewer jobs for Minnesotans. And when a single illness or medical emergency can bankrupt a family, that family wont be shopping at our small businesses or contributing to a robust economy.

The Republican repeal plan is only part of the problem. At the same time, Trump and the Republicans in Congress are actively sabotaging the ACA marketplaces, where about 200,000 Minnesotans are getting their coverage. One of the GOPs tactics is threatening to hold back payments that lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Without these payments, fewer people will be able to afford coverage. With fewer customers, insurance companies might abandon many of the markets, especially in rural areas, or hike premiums.

Does the ACA need some improvements? Of course. But we shouldnt scrap whats working for a new plan that increases costs, allows insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy and insurance and drug companies. The Republican House plan even includes an age tax that lets insurers charge older consumers five times more than younger ones!

Our leaders should be building on what works not sabotaging progress for Minnesotans to score political points. House Republicans like Erik Paulsen have the opportunity to take a stand for Minnesotans and small businesses by rejecting the health care plan that President Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed.

A thriving health care market means I have a real choice. I can afford quality insurance to keep my family healthy and my business thriving. And like millions of newly insured Americans, Im not interested in going backward.

Todd Mikkelson is the owner of SprayRack.com in Orono. He visited his congressman, Rep. Eric Paulsens office in December to urge him to not vote for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

See original here:
Republican health plan is a disaster for Minnesota's small businesses - MinnPost

Democrat Jon Ossoffs loss in the Georgia special congressional election has demoralized progressives who hoped it would signal an anti-Trump wave that could turn the House from red to blue in 2018.

The left is fractured, with disagreements between the Bernie and Hillary wings of the Democratic Party threatening to undercut its ability to turn out the base, appeal to independents and win over disillusioned GOP voters. The question remains whether the so-called resistance can transform itself from a throng of angry voices into a majority capable of creating lasting progressive change.

As activists take up this challenge, they should study the playbook of one of the most successful social justice movements in history: the fight for LGBTQ equality. In short order, our movement beat back the AIDS epidemic, ended sodomy bans, won access to military service and marriage and ultimately more than doubled public approval of gay identity.

There were several keys to the movements victories. But one lesson in particular applies to todays deeply divided politics: Success came when LGBTQ advocates learned to speak the language of those they most needed to enlist rather than those who already agreed with them.

Striving to see our cause through the eyes of folks we didnt know well, who were indifferent and sometimes actively opposed to our goals, meant adopting a principle from the world of social work: Changing peoples hearts and minds requires meeting them where they are. To some, framing our goals in terms aimed at more conservative audiences was tantamount to selling out. Yet we learned that such pragmatism could achieve more and more durable social change than ideological purity.

The battle for marriage equality is a case in point. For years, LGBTQ activists, who were largely (but not exclusively) creatures of the left, avoided making marriage a priority. Many considered it conformist, even retrograde, at odds with the most radical, passionately held ideals of gay liberation.

When activists did include marriage on their agenda, they tended to speak of it in legalistic terms that stressed entitlement to equal rights; they emphasized the deprivations lack of insurance and tax benefits, for instance associated with being denied a license to wed. Those tactics werent ineffective; they helped create domestic partnership protections in many towns and states, and by 2004 notched one all-out victory: Same-sex couples gained the right to wed in Massachusetts in a state Supreme Court decision.

Yet social conservatives were stirring a backlash and also racking up wins, proactively passing same-sex marriage bans in dozens of states. As troubling, public approval of marriage equality, which had been rising throughout the 1990s, plateaued at around 34% in 2000. LGBTQ advocates had the support of staunch liberals, but they were failing to win over the next batch of supporters needed to build a majority coalition: the moderates of the moveable middle.

So marriage advocates scrutinized their message. Backed by donors dedicated to winning the battle, gay rights organizations hired pollsters to conduct focus groups of moderate liberals and conservatives who supported gay rights but not gay marriage. The results hit strategists like lightning. When straight people were asked why they cared about marriage, they mentioned love, commitment and family; yet they thought gay people wanted to marry for different reasons: the rights and benefits. The moveable middle wasnt moving because its members didnt recognize same-sex couples wish to wed as similar to their own.

In response, several gay groups created new campaigns that framed the issue in starkly personal terms. What if you couldnt marry the person you love? asked one ad field-tested in Santa Barbara to counter Californias infamous Proposition 8. Although most Southern Californians voted in favor of the anti-gay-marriage ballot measure, in Santa Barbara County it lost by 10 points.

We quit talking about legal benefits, talking from the head, said Tim Sweeney, a longtime gay activist. Instead, the marriage equality battle would turn on core values. The trick was to appeal to human empathy rather than to merely emphasize demands or appear to be subversive.

By 2011, a slim majority of Americans were telling pollsters they supported same-sex marriage. It was no coincidence when, the next year, President Obama announced his support as well. When he did, he adopted the movements language of common values, saying that incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships among White House staffers had changed his mind. Likewise, three years later, when Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy penned his majority opinion in Obergefell vs. Hodges, he referenced the emotional resonance of marriage, citing its nobility and worthiness, in guaranteeing it to same-sex couples. Marriage equality, now supported by 60% of Americans, was the law of the land.

Some on todays left act as though the only way to achieve their goals is by catering to the most liberal leanings of the group. A very progressive manifesto is how Bernie Sanders recently characterized what Democrats need to win back power. Yet its far from clear that a to the barricades image is the best way to advance progressive aims. Indeed, it was a positive message based not on outrage but common human values that took gay marriage from fringe to respectable to just plain normal.

Pragmatic engagement with those who werent the natural supporters of LGBTQ rights made lives tangibly better for gay people and inched us all closer to realizing a truly progressive vision.

Nathaniel Frank is author of Awakening: How Gays and Lesbians Brought Marriage Equality to America and director of the What We Know project at Columbia Law School.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Read more:
Attention progressives: Take a lesson from LGBTQ successes and ... - Los Angeles Times

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Progressives Are the New Puritan Busybodies - WSJ Wall Street Journal (subscription) Why do progressive fundamentalists pick primarily on believers in Judeo-Christian scripture? One doesn't hear Democrats insisting that Muslims express a ... and more »

View original post here:
Progressives Are the New Puritan Busybodies - WSJ - Wall Street Journal (subscription)