Mediaboss Marketing

Jason Furman, who served as former President Barack Obamas top economic adviser, tweeted Thursday that the distributional effect of the Houses $80,000 SALT cap is even worse than I had feared," citing a Tax Policy Center analysis released earlier in the day.

This could be greatly ameliorated by adding an income limit for the expansion of the cap so that no one making over a middle-class income, broadly defined, gets it, Furman said. Some Senators have been talking about this, I hope they do it.

The TPC analysis shows the benefit of the $80,000 cap for those cut off from relief under the Sanders-Menendez proposal: Households earning between $500,000 and $1 million next year would receive an average tax cut of $6,100 under the House bill.

And while overall households earning over $1 million next year would see tax increases totaling about $68,000 on average, within that group nearly two-thirds of millionaires would still see tax cuts worth nearly $16,800.

Tax cuts for higher earners wouldnt span the full decade under the House plan because it extends the cap past its current 2025 expiration. That means later in the decade, the $80,000 cap would be a burden, rather than relief.

More:
Democrats' 'SALT' headache hangs over budget reconciliation bill - Roll Call

The Democratic members of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections said on Monday that they would be refusing to meet privately with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who is conducting a widely criticized review of the 2020 election.

Gableman, after a heated appearance before the committee last week, attempted to meet privately with the Democratic members, which they said they refused because they believe his work should be done in public.

After refusing to answer questions or provide information in public, Mike Gableman is seeking private meetings with Democratic members of the Committee on Campaigns and Elections, a joint statement from Reps. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) declared. We will not be a part of Mike Gablemans attempts to hide from public scrutiny. Mike Gableman had a chance to answer questions in public, but he chose not to. We see no reason to meet with him in private.

Gablemans review was originally supposed to be wrapped up by the end of October but Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said last month it could go into next year. Members of Gablemans staff have also been kept secret, with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporting last month that a lawyer working for Gableman could only be identified as Carol. When he began his review, Gableman sent requests for documents to elections clerks across the state from an anonymous Gmail account with the name John Delta.

The Democrats on the committee said Vos should end Gablemans sham review and criticized the conclusions Gableman has already made.

Last week, Mike Gableman appeared before the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections and attempted to bluster and grandstand through an entire public meeting about his investigation rather than give Committee members and the public the information they deserve, the Democrats said. His office is funded with public tax dollars, but he has routinely refused to be up front and honest with the public about how he is spending those taxpayer funds.

During his hour and a half with the Committee, Gableman repeatedly rejected the idea of providing basic information like the names of the people who work for him and what their credentials are, they continued. Gableman flatly refused to commit to conducting his investigation in public hearings in front of the Committee on Campaigns and Elections. Gablemans interim report provided no new information, instead simply rehashing cherry-picked information from other entities and providing Gablemans own biased commentary.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Originally posted here:
Democrats on Assembly elections committee refuse to meet with Gableman - Wisconsin Examiner

The Democrats have a 2024 conundrum, with heir apparent Vice President Harris presenting a maze of questions and complications. Lets start with the foundational problem: her boss, President BidenJoe BidenBiden restates commitment to 'one China' policy on Taiwan in call with Xi Biden raises human rights with China's Xi during four hour meeting Biden, Xi hold 'candid' discussion amid high tensions MORE.

A USA Today-Suffolk University poll conducted last week had Bidens job approval rating dipping to 38 percent, with 59 percent disapproving. Also, 64 percent of the registered voters surveyed opposed Biden running for reelection, including 28 percent of Democrats.

Furthermore, a mid-October NPR-Marist poll revealed that 44 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents thought someone else besides Biden would have the best chance of winning the presidency.

Maybe now Biden is rethinking his March 25 statement: My plan is to run for reelection, thats my expectation. After all, Bidens expectation might be thwarted by the growing perception that he is a weak leader not up to the task of governing and shaken by the shellacking Democrats received in last weeks elections.

Democratic strategists dream of a turnaround after a potential string of legislative victories. But with inflation soaring, their nightmare is the 2022 midterm elections warning of a red tidal wave, with Republicans likely to win control of the House and perhaps the Senate.

And the wave could crush Harris if she stars in a potential Republican attack ad. In the final days of the tight Virginia gubernatorial race, while campaigning with Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffeTerry McAuliffeInfrastructure updates only get us halfway we need Build Back Better bill, too Kemp makes pitch to conservatives, independents in new campaign ad Democrats expect to pass .75T Biden package this week MORE, Harris displayed a stunning lack of political savvy when she said, What happens in Virginia will, in large part, determine what happens in 2022, 2024 and on."

Harris violated a cardinal political rule never publicly state the future meaning of a race that your candidate could lose and her candidate was walloped.

If the midterms turn out to be a Democratic repudiation, stick a fork in Joe Bidens presidency and expect the following questions to occupy copious amounts of cable bandwidth.

1) When will Biden announce that he is not running for reelection?

Certainly earlier than President Lyndon Baines Johnson when he announced his decision not to seek a second term on March 31, 1968 only eight months from Election Day.

Herein lies the dilemma: The earlier Biden announces his lame-duck status, the more his power decreases, reflecting the aura of a failed presidency. So, naturally, attention then shifts to the Democrats presidential horse race. But more consequential is the national security perspective if enemies think a defeated Biden signals an opportune time for aggression.

Conversely, the longer Biden delays his announcement, the more those seeking the nomination will be handicapped. Nearly two years are needed for an organizational build-up to raise the megamillions of dollars required to wage a successful presidential primary campaign.

For example, then-Sen. Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaEquilibrium/Sustainability Presented by Southern Company COVID-19 kills snow leopards at US zoo David Axelrod calls Rittenhouse judge 'defense attorney on the bench' Manchin set to make or break Biden's climate pledge MORE (D-Ill.)announced his 2008 presidential campaign on Feb. 10, 2007, early in the election cycle.

Then-Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala HarrisWhite House dismisses talk of Harris-Biden rift Christie: Trump rhetoric about stolen election led to Jan. 6 attack Biden aides offer praise for Harris after critical CNN report MORE (D-Calif.)announced her 2020 presidential aspirations on Jan. 21, 2019. But she quickly flamed out and withdrewon Dec. 3, 2019.

2) Will Harris pressure Biden to announce his 2024 plans early? Then she could begin acting like a president-in-waiting while potentially keeping her primary opponents at bay.

3) If Biden announces that he will be a one-term president, when will he endorse Harris as his successor? Or will Biden choose to mimicObamain 2020? Remember, Obama held off endorsing his former vice president until April 14, after Biden had clinched the nomination most likely to avoid embarrassment.

But will Harris even want Bidens endorsement if his job approval rating is below 40 percent? In that case, will she seek to separate herself from him? Any of these scenarios will be an awkward, clumsy dance between Joe and Kamala.

4) At the heart of the Harris 2024 conundrum are her consistently dismal job approval ratings the latest at 28 percent with 51 percent disapproving. And Harriss RealClearPolitics average favorable rating is 40 percent with 51 percent unfavorable.

So what if in early 2023 her ratings are still low, and general election match-up polls show her losing to most or all potential GOP opponents? How then do Democratic presidential candidates wage a primary campaign to defeat the incumbent vice president who is the first minority woman to hold that office?

5) Will Democrats elect Harris as their nominee because its her turn? Historically, the its their turn strategy does not end well for either party. (See Clinton, Hillary 2016.) White House winners are usually charismatic leaders with their fingers on the nation's pulse, and Harris falls short on both. President Biden was a notable exception. He was hardly charismatic but fit the bill when Americans sought a no drama return to normalcy after four years of President TrumpDonald TrumpHouse Freedom Caucus elects Rep. Scott Perry as new chairman Meadows 'between a rock and a hard space' with Trump, Jan. 6 panel On The Money Biden caps off infrastructure week MORE.

6) What if in 2024 Harris is the incumbent president either through an unspeakable event or because Biden resigns for health reasons to give Harris an electoral advantage? Anything can happen between now and 2024.

7) Will Republicans support Harriss candidacy by sending her money and forming pro-Harris groups as a ruse to help her win the 2024 nomination? Yes is my guess.

Finally, it appears the American people are just not that into Harris. She rubs many voters the wrong way branded as an uninspiring leftist and weak leader although shes credited with a historical gender and race breakthrough.

Now, imagine a 2024 election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It would be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) with an unpopular sharp-tongued incumbent female vice president taking on a twice-impeached former president with authoritarian tendencies avenging his 2020 defeat. Our nation deserves better.

Myra Adams writes about politics and religion for numerous publications. She is a RealClearPolitics contributor and served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

The rest is here:
Kamala Harris a 2024 problem for Biden and the Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

As a moderate Democrat for more than five decades, I have seen politicians in both parties act remarkably blind and deaf to the true causes of their defeats when they really dont want to hear the truth.

Most recently, the Democrats had a major defeat at the polls, and they have tried to blame it on their failure to pass infrastructure legislation prior to the election. Although this was possibly a small factor, the major unspoken reason was their imposition of excessive closures and mandates related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am a retired physician, and yes, COVID-19 is a true pandemic that has killed 750,000 Americans in the last two years. However, for healthy younger people, a COVID-19 infection presents minimal health risks.

To better put the deaths in perspective, 200,000 of them occurred in people aged 85 and older. Another 195,000 deaths occurred in people aged 75 and older. Taken together, more than 50% of all COVID-19 deaths occurred in elderly people at high risk for death due to other causes. Only 18,000 deaths have occurred among the 150 million people in the United States aged 40 or younger. The death rate in this age group is about 1 in 10,000.

Among school-age children, there have been fewer than 600 total deaths among the 80 million children younger than 18 years old, for a death rate of less than 1 out of every 100,000 children. Of the deaths in people who were younger than 40 years old, the vast majority of them occurred in people with impaired immune systems due to chronic disease, cancer, severe obesity, or other high-risk conditions.

Fortunately, vaccination usually reduces the severity of the disease and the risk of death. The elderly and those with risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection should choose to be vaccinated, but no one should be forced to be vaccinated. Even after vaccination, some people with weakened immune systems, either from advanced age or other risk factors, will continue to die from COVID-19. No amount of immunization or miracle drugs can prevent this from happening.

Most importantly, if you follow the science, the numbers above cannot possibly justify the imposition of vaccine mandates in schools or in most businesses. People do not want their healthcare decisions to be made for them by the government.

This has been clearly shown with regard to the issue of cigarette smoking. Everyone knows that smoking is harmful and that long-term smoking significantly reduces life expectancy, yet large numbers of people continue to smoke. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States. Although I would never advocate it, we would save far more lives by making smoking illegal than will ever be saved with vaccine mandates.

Democratic officials have alienated large numbers of moderate Democratic voters, and especially independent voters, by imposing excessive closures, mask requirements, and vaccine mandates. Next November, this will become obvious. By then, both infrastructure bills will have passed, and the Democrats will suffer very large losses at the polls because of their continued overreactions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mark Donnell is a retired medical doctor in New Mexico.

See original here:
Democrats' overreaction to the pandemic is alienating voters - Washington Examiner

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