Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney recently released a bold proposal for a cash family benefit that breaks with decades of Republican Party orthodox: markets good, government bad. Romneys proposal has sparked an extensive debate about how best to design a family benefit, with the Biden administration releasing a rival plan.

The policy world will fight over the merits of these different bills. But together they register a shift in the public debate about the U.S. welfare state. What Romneys proposal embodies is essentially an effort to remodel the American welfare stateand, by extension, the Republican Partyalong the lines of European Christian democracy.

Romneys Family Security Act would provide a monthly cash benefit of $350 for young children and $250 for school-aged children, paid by the Social Security Administration. Families would be eligible for the benefit up to four months before their childs due date. To create this benefit, Romney proposes eliminating the targeted anti-poverty program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); the Earned Income Tax Credit, a means-tested tax credit that varies depending on the size of your family; and the State and Local Tax Deduction, which largely benefits better-off voters in states that regularly vote Democrat.

Children and family benefits are a staple of European welfare states. But while much of what we associate with the European welfare state was built by robust labor movements and allied social democratic parties, family benefits are a legacy of Christian democracy. Germanys child benefit system was created in the 1950s under Christian Democratic Union head Konrad Adenauers leadership, while Frances was shaped by the Christian democratic Popular Republican Movement in the postwar provisional government.

This reflects an underappreciated fact about conservative visions of the free market: The market is often imagined as a meeting place of the heads of families rather than of isolated individuals. When then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously declared that theres no such thing as society, she added that there are individual men and women and there are families. From Edmund Burke to Joseph Schumpeter, conservative thinkers argued that the family created, for its (male) leader, a sense of responsibility and a longer time horizon, things capitalism needs but cannot itself create. Thus, government financial support for families would complement, not undermine, a market order. Family benefits could establish the family as the key mediating institution between the state and the market, as opposed to socialist demands for politicizing wage labor. Romneys plan is summoning this conservative attitude.

Yet family benefits have also had more troubling associations with natalismthe idea that the government has a responsibility to ensure a certain birth rate. As a result, family benefit proposals were often greeted with caution by more left-wing parties, which were reluctant to focus social policy around expanding the size of families. Where social democrats were in power, the question of family benefits created unease. For example, in Sweden, the debate over family policies was sparked by an influential book Crisis in the Population Question, by Alva Myrdal and Gunnar Myrdal (co-recipient of the first Nobel Prize in economics). Their argument mixed egalitarian concerns about supporting families with an explicit focus on the importance of a high birth rate for economic growth and national defense. Even as the Swedish Social Democratic Party embraced the need to expand material support for the worst-off in society, they worried about treating the family as just another economic variable.

Nonetheless, the overlap between conservative concerns about the family and liberal and socialist worries about poverty marks family policy as an important arena of cross-ideological welfare state building.Could the same be true in the United States? Given the surprisingly warm welcome for Romneys plan from a variety of ideological corners, and President Joe Bidens similar plan, there are some early signs pointing to yes. But Romneys plan or a similar family proposal would not just mark an expansion of social welfare benefits in the United Statesit could also mark a more fundamental shift in the structure of the U.S. welfare state.

Why doesnt the United States have a European-style welfare state? This has been the topic of perennial academic debate going back to Werner Sombarts 1906 work Why is there No Socialism in the United States? Even compared to its relatively market-oriented liberal peers like the United Kingdom, the United States has always stood out for its underdeveloped social safety net. The development of social policies in the United States has always been constrained by a toxic brew of racism, federalism, and constitutional barriers to enacting ambitious political programs. Given the associations of welfare and race, the American poor relief state is miserly and means-tested. Federalism means that programs are run by states with incentives to gut them and divert federal funds elsewhere. Legislative gridlock incentivized politicians to disguise government programs as tax cuts, which are easier to pass.

A federal family benefit would strike at all three pathologies of the U.S. welfare state. Few programs embody the destructive combination of race and federalism as much as TANF. American family policies have always been stigmatized because of the association between welfare and race. The-President Bill Clintons 1996 welfare reform bill, which created TANF, was the product of decades of sexist and racist moral panic about welfare queenssupposedly undeserving Black mothers taking advantage of hard-working Americans. Clintons reform both transferred responsibility for family relief to the states and enabled states to introduce work requirements and other administrative burdens for those seeking assistance. The result is a tattered safety net for Americas poorest citizens.

By eliminating TANF and replacing it with a much more generous program that will also serve middle-class recipients, a monthly cash family benefit would prove more politically sustainable. For the past several decades, the policy consensus in the United States has been that targeted programs avoid what is termed upward redistribution toward less needy middle-class recipients. But even if the spending is less targeted, the broader political support can mean the program will be more generous. By creating a broader constituency of beneficiaries, more inclusive programs tend to be more redistributive and more sustainable over the long run.

Most significantly, Romney proposes eliminating a welfare program disguised as a tax cut, turning it into a straightforward cash benefit. This has caused the most backlash from his fellow Republicans. Sens. Marco Rubio and Mike Lee attacked Romneys idea for turning tax relief for working parents into welfare assistance. From the perspective of a familys budget, this is all semantics. But it has political significance. Americans tend to believe they are not receiving any government benefits even when they are, leading to Americas peculiar submerged state, in the expert Suzanne Mettlers phrase. And this is because, as the political scientist Jacob Hacker shows, the U.S. welfare state has been built through backdoor tax rebates rather than direct benefits.

A federal child benefit, paid in cash each month, could do more than just lift millions of Americans out of poverty. It could also more fundamentally shift Americans attitudes toward the welfare state. The political scientist Ethan Porter recently gathered a great deal of evidence that Americans can become much less anti-government than commonly thought. Rather than being straightforwardly anti-government, they want to feel like they are getting a good deal. Having a cash benefit hit their bank account every month would encourage such a feeling. Yet Romneys plan may also be cunning in securing a conservative welfare state equilibrium, where popular government programs are focused on strong families rather than strong unions and workers protections.

Along with organizations like the never Trump think tank the Niskanen Center, Romneys proposal reflects the rise of a broader welfare-state-curious tendency on the U.S. right. After a decade of slow growth and rising inequality, American political debate has shifted markedly toward the value of government intervention in the economy and society. Given the divides within the Republican Party, it will be up to a Democratic presidency to embody that shift in new policies. Romney has a knack for crafting the landmark policies of Democratic presidencies, and his family benefit may be no exception.

Continue reading here:
Mitt Romney and Other US Conservatives Are Finally Learning to Love the Welfare State - Foreign Policy

Meghan McCain delivered a heated argument on this mornings episode ofThe Viewin defense of her political party, but her comments left plenty of viewers scratching their heads. During todays Hot Topics segment, McCain chimed in with her own views on cancel culture, abortion, and socialism in a conversation about Donald Trumps impeachment acquittal, and ended her speech with an exasperated plea.

When asked by her co-host Whoopi Goldberg about her response to Trumps acquittal, McCain explained that she had a lot of different thoughts, but launched into a comparison between the two parties. I think its easy to say that the Republican party is only the party of QAnon and all these things, she began. If thats the truth, then the Democratic party is the party of socialism, and late-term abortion, and cancel culture, and no responsibility or ramifications for any of your actions, and you can burn down cities like Kenosha and its finethese are broad stroke platitudes.

She continued, I dont believe either are true. I dont think Republicans are simply QAnon supporters, I dont think Democrats are simply socialists. McCain then cautioned against shaming the crazy, QAnon Trump supporters into non-existence, citing recent polls showing high approval ratings for Trump, despite his second impeachment. As much as the left wants to act like Republicans are only QAnon supporters, part of the problem is for someone like me, when I hear that I automatically get very tribal and Im like, Well, I dont want the left, because for me I am the most intensely pro-life person that I know of, particularly on mainstream TV.

I believe that abortion is murder, I believe that life begins at conception, and I know that the opposite party says that, Oh, theres some people that dont agree with me, that think that its different, that abortions should happen up to late term,' she continued. So I think the idea that the Republican party is one swath, its just not nuanced, and the problem I have is, the only way to become a good Republican is to be become a Democrat, according to the media, and I dont know what to do anymore, because I cant keep coming on TV everyday saying that were all Nazis and you know, Hitler salutes and whatever. Its just not intellectually honest.

After McCains lengthy speech, Goldberg added her own impassioned take in response. The Republicans have brought this on themselves. Theyve brought this view of them on themselves, she said, adding, You should be a little uncomfortable, because we sort of went through this and now were going to be going through it again. You brought this on yourself. Youre thought of this way because of what youve shown everybody.

Watch Meghan McCains full speech in the clip above.

Where to watchThe View

Follow this link:
Meghan McCain Says If Republicans are the "Party of QAnon" Then Democrats Are the Party of "Socialism and Late-Term Abortion" -...

What are rare earth metals and why should you care about them? Rare earth metals are critical for manufacturing just about every electronic device that you, and all of the world's modern militaries, use every day. They're essential for making screens, hard drives, and precision glass.

Without rare earths, you can't use a cell phone, save a document, watch a Netflix series, drive a new car, take a digital photograph, fly a drone, target a missile, or build a fighter jet. You wouldn't even be able to read Signal though we promise to make hard copies available if it comes to that.

It just so happens that China has a near-monopoly on the business of refining these metals for use in manufacturing. Since the 1990s, when environmental regulations in the US made it cheaper to refine rare earths in China, Beijing's share of the industry has risen from about 30 percent to more than 80 percent today. With that kind of market power, China can throw its weight around, and the US-China rivalry over technology creates a powerful incentive to do just that.

What is China threatening? According to the Financial Times scoop, China is conducting a fresh study to determine whether cutting off rare earths exports to the US would cripple the US defense industry, which relies on the stuff to make all of its key weapons systems. A single F-35 fighter jet, for example, contains close to 1,000 pounds of rare earths metals, according to a US congressional report.

The Pentagon knows all this, right? Of course. For years, Pentagon planners have been looking for ways to secure more access to rare earths mines, in particular by making inroads in southern African countries that are rich in reserves. And the Trump administration last year issued an emergency order to boost rare earths production in the US.

But the challenge isn't so much in finding rare earths which are, despite their name, present all over the world, including in the US. It's extracting them and then refining them that costs and pollutes a lot. Private investors haven't been able to make it profitable under US rules, so US agencies and lawmakers have explored subsidizing production or making regulatory changes that make more rare earths available for refining.

But for a Biden administration that has put environmental protection at the center of its agenda, this could mean a tough tradeoff: protect the defense industry and Silicon Valley, or protect the environment.

Would China really do this? Cutting off rare earth supplies to the US would be a huge blow to the US defense industry, and could also complicate things for Silicon Valley, which relies on Chinese rare earths as well though less so because so much of their manufacturing is actually in China at the moment.

Washington would almost certainly respond with severe sanctions or export limitations of its own. The US has already moved to limit China's ability to buy semiconductors, an area where China is almost entirely dependent on the outside world, in particular on Taiwan.

But there's another consideration for China don't rock your own boat. By threatening to cut rare earths supply, the Chinese government adds to other countries' sense of urgency about developing their own mining and refining. While that obviously won't happen overnight, the threat of losing access to 80-90 percent of the world's rare earths supply would accelerate things significantly.

More Show less

More here:
Can Biden work with Lpez Obrador on meaningful immigration reform? - GZERO Media

My motto is, get something done, said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.). Whatever we do, we can't walk away empty-handed.

Like many other Democrats committed to an immigration overhaul, Gomez didn't publicly close the door to a massive deal, hoping to give Biden's team a chance: Does it mean a big immigration reform package? Maybe. Does it mean using budget reconciliation? Possibly. Or does it mean individual bills? Could be.

But Democratic veterans say they learned from the party's big immigration letdown in 2009, the last time it held all levers of power. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said he remembered then-President Barack Obama telling the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about his overhaul plans in April that year. The Blue Dog Democrat then leaned over to a colleague and whispered, It aint gonna happen."

And he warned the same thing could happen under Biden.

"Bottom line is, even when we had a supermajority in a better situation than were in right now, we did not pass anything," Cuellar said. Im not saying no way, Im just saying it would be very difficult.

Democratic veterans say they learned from the party's big immigration letdown in 2009, the last time it held all levers of power. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said he remembered then-President Barack Obama telling the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about his overhaul plans in April that year. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

The divide over how to reshape the nations broken immigration system is a well-known Washington tripwire. But the question of whether to pursue a piecemeal approach or take one big swing has fresh urgency with Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House.

Democrats insist they're pursuing a dual-track approach, with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Linda Snchez (D-Calif.) launching a full whip effort for Bidens comprehensive bill while leadership tees up more narrow proposals for floor time, likely in March.

Brian Deese, director of the White Houses National Economic Council, and Jeff Zients, Bidens coronavirus coordinator, will meet with the CHC next week. Several Democrats privately said theyre waiting on Biden to publicly signal hes open to a more step-by-step path something those close to him have expressed openness to, but the president and White House officials have yet to say outright.

April 1 looms on the calendar as Democrats face mounting pressure from immigration activists to move at least some key priorities. To skip another round of lengthy hearings, the party has to bring immigration-related bills that were passed last year such as protections for Dreamers or a farm worker modernization bill to the floor by then.

I think there is some unity around the idea" of a piecemeal strategy, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said, while adding she would also push very, very hard for the broader plan Biden and his allies plan to release next week.

Jayapal, who started her career in politics as an immigration activist, said Democrats want to push forward on a bigger proposal while moving on a "parallel track" of bringing previously passed smaller bills to the floor.

Those tricky politics have already started playing out on the Hill as Democrats work to finalize their massive $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill. The debate raging behind the scenes: whether taxpaying undocumented immigrants should be eligible for the measure's $1,400 stimulus checks.

Top Democrats spent multiple days convincing members of the CHC, led by Gomez, not to offer an amendment on the issue during that bills markup this week a vote that would have been deeply uncomfortable for the partys centrists.

Nikki Haley enjoyed the MAGA glow while avoiding Trump's brash brand of politics. But in the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, that position is becoming less and less tenable.

The California Democrat ultimately decided not to force the vote, and later said in an interview, It was something that we couldn't reach agreement on. Gomez added that he hopes to find a place for the measure in future packages and build support for it among his colleagues.

Latinos in my district, since November, had a 1,000 percent increase in deaths because of Covid, said Gomez. And I believe that since these folks are paying taxes, they deserve to get some of those benefits.

A similar non-binding amendment vote in the Senate last week also showed how sharp the divisions are, with eight Democrats breaking ranks to back a GOP amendment that would have prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving checks.

Democrats have taken a small step to expand payment access since last year. They negotiated a new provision in December's massive relief bill to fix a glitch that prevented U.S. citizens from receiving stimulus checks if someone in their household was undocumented. And in the Covid package moving through committee this week, Democrats expanded the eligibility pool for households to receive checks to include all children who are U.S. citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status.

The benchmark is the social security number, said a White House aide.

But friction over the stimulus checks shows that despite party leaders' leftward shift on multiple issues since the Obama years, Democrats are still fractured over how ambitious they can get on immigration.

President Joe Biden entered office facing demands from immigration advocacy groups to move legislation in his first 100 days, using that window to enact massive policy changes before Congress productivity plummets as lawmakers pivot toward the next election cycle. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Biden entered office facing demands from immigration advocacy groups to move legislation in his first 100 days, using that window to enact massive policy changes before Congress productivity plummets as lawmakers pivot toward the next election cycle.

And those expectations have sparked a frenzied internal debate over tactics and the timing of Bidens plans.

We need to see what combination of bills may indeed get those 60 votes, said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), referring to the necessary threshold for Senate passage. Chu said she's hoping that Biden's bill can get there but acknowledged the uphill climb and said "at least there's some alternatives, in case it doesn't."

Chu and other members of the group working on the Biden plan, dubbed The Closers, will start what she called "an all-out effort" on the Hill next week after they release the text of the presidents immigration package.

Senior House Democrats highly doubt they could wrangle 218 votes for a massive reform package and think the chances of passage in the 50-50 Senate are next to zero. Still, theyre keeping hope alive for a miracle.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said lawmakers are haunted by memories from the Obama administration, when Democrats missed their chance to muscle through immigration reform. Aguilar, a member of leadership, described Biden's White House as learning at least some lessons from the past.

We are in a different moment in the sense that we have the administration leaning in pretty hard on this topic and moving in sync with us and being so closely aligned, Aguilar said.

See the article here:
It would be very difficult: Dems prepare for heartburn over Biden immigration plan - POLITICO

Boundless Immigration Inc. submits this statement for the record to provide the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship with data relevant to its February 11, 2021 hearing on The U.S. Immigration System: The Need for Bold Reforms.

Boundless is a Seattle-based technology company that empowers families to navigate the immigration system more confidently, rapidly, and affordably.

This statement includes sections on the following topics, with links to more detailed resources:

I. Our Family-Based Immigration System Too Often Keeps Families Apart

As part of his proposed immigration bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, President Biden calls for an overhaul of family-based immigration and an undoing of the Trump administrations systematic dismantling of the legal immigration system.

One of the most egregious policies enacted in recent years is the public charge rule, essentially an income test that makes it much harder for non-wealthy families to obtain green cards. The rule, now under review by the Biden administration, goes against our core American values of inclusion and equality of opportunity. In addition, the Trump-era Presidential Proclamation 10014 continues to ban entry by all family-based immigrants except for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, which we estimate is blocking 358,000 individuals per year. Such policies that work to keep families apart have no place here, a nation built on the contributions of immigrants.

President Biden has also proposed shortening lengthy green card wait times and increasing per-country green card caps. In some family-based visa categories, relatives are currently slated to wait more than 100 years to receive a green card, which means that many close family members of U.S. citizens will die before they are reunited with their families. We need to remove these unnecessary barriers to ensure that families can live and prosper together.

II. The Naturalization Backlog Negatively Impacts the U.S. Economy

The United States must streamline and simplify the naturalization process. Naturalization benefits the economy naturalized citizens earn 8-11% more annually than non-naturalized immigrants, and if half of all those eligible were to naturalize, the increased earnings could boost GDP by up to $52 billion a year. Currently, nearly 9 million immigrants qualify for U.S. citizenship, but the backlog in processing applications has left more than 700,000 green card holders in limbo. Although the coronavirus pandemic temporarily froze naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies, processing times were increasing long beforehand. It now takes U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) around 10 months on average to approve a citizenship application, more than double the processing time between 2012 and 2016.

III. Protecting Undocumented Immigrants from Deportation Delivers Major Economic and Civic Benefits

Since it was first launched in 2012, the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program has protected around 800,000 young people from deportation. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to eliminate the program, and barred first-time DACA applicants from applying. But late last year, the federal courts reinstated the program, and now President Biden proposes to create a pathway to citizenship not only for DACA recipients, but for all 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.

Such bold reforms would deliver major economic and civic benefits. In 2017, DACA-eligible individuals and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders held $25.2 billion in spending power and contributed more than $5.5 billion in taxes. When people no longer fear deportation, they also tend to become more engaged and active in their communities, and feel a greater sense of belonging.

According to a recent Boundless report, nearly half the DACA recipients surveyed said they became more politically active after their application was approved, and 52% reported becoming more involved in their community. Their economic prospects also greatly improved prior to approval, only 45% of DACA recipients were employed compared to 88% who reported having a job after they were approved. In addition, their average annual earnings increased from $22,595 to $47,979 per year.

Read more from the original source:
Here's What Boundless Had to Say About the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Boundless - Boundless