Mediaboss Marketing

When voters vote in 2022, will they be thinking about Joe Biden, or something else? Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

The signs are not good for Democrats hoping to hang onto their current Washington trifecta in the 2022 midterms. Actually, midterm prospects are never good for parties controlling the White House, unless the president involved has very high job-approval ratings (like Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002) and/or something weird is going on (like a gratuitous Republican impeachment effort in 1998 and the aftermath of 9/11 in 2002). By definition, you never know when something strange is on the horizon, but the trajectory of Joe Bidens job-approval ratings, and the cap placed on them by partisan polarization, suggest it is very unlikely hell roll into 2022 on a wave of adulation. As Amy Walter has pointed out, Bidens job-approval ratio is not only underwater now: The ratio between strong approval and strong disapproval is especially upside down; if translated to enthusiasm levels for the midterms, thats deadly, given the tiny margin of Democratic control in the House, where every seat is up in the midterms.

It might be smart for Democrats to stop worrying about the impossible task of holding on to their trifecta and instead just focus on accomplishing as much of Bidens agenda as they can cram through Congress on party-line votes. In fact, they have a decent chance to hold onto the Senate, given the particular seats up in 2022, and that has considerable value in terms of Bidens ability to get executive and judicial nominees confirmed. But you cannot expect Nancy Pelosi to hand over the Speakers gavel to her despised Golden State rival Kevin McCarthy without a fight, so Democrats need a midterm message that transcends Bidens accomplishments or agenda.

That means changing (or at least trying to change) the subject to make the midterms less of the usual referendum on the sitting presidents job performance. What are the options for a big distraction? Lets go through them:

One obvious option is to do what worked to energize Democratic voters and persuade swing voters in 2018 and 2020: Help the narcissistic 45th president keep himself at the center of attention. Indeed, as the contrast between the results in 2018 and 2020 showed, 2022 could replicate the situation where Trump is on the minds of voters who fear him but not on an actual ballot where voters who love him will feel compelled to go to the polls to express their affection (you saw the same phenomenon with Obama supporters in the 2010 and 2014 midterms where their president was not on the ballot).

What would this look like in an ad or media talking points? Probably something like this:

Without question, Gavin Newsoms likely-to-be-successful campaign to beat a recall effort has been heavily focused on tying recall sponsors and Republican replacement candidates to the more lurid and ongoing of Trumps misdeeds, particularly the January 6 insurrection. And its looking like Democratic turnout for the recall election (which ends on September 14) will be robust despite earlier fears to the contrary.

How much of a Newsom win would be attributable to anti-Trump messaging is hard to say, just as its hard to say whether the fears the MAGA folk aroused on January 6 and in subsequent Big Lie activities like post-election audits will remain powerful right through the midterms. Any plans to deploy an anti-Trump message, moreover, will have to deal with the powerful undertow of sentiment among Democrats that the man will go away if they just refuse to talk about him any longer.

Thats why the effectiveness of a loud anti-Trump midterm effort may depend on how close he is to announcing or renouncing a potential 2024 comeback bid, and how visible and successful he is in 2022 primaries and other tests of his grip on the GOP. At a minimum, its clear progressives and the news media should not underestimate Trump a third time, or pass up opportunities to profit on the special loathing he arouses in the Democratic base and many swing voters as well. Running against Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell while ignoring Trump may simply enhance the impression that the worst is over.

Two big state-driven political trends in 2021 offer Democrats another ripe target that has the additional advantage of offering a unified message relevant to candidates at both the federal and state levels: going after GOP attacks on voting rights and reproductive rights. These are clearly base-energizing topics with significant swing-voter appeal, and can help supplement the depiction of Republicans as right-wing radicals with or without Trumps leadership. There is also almost zero chance Republicans will undercut such a message by abandoning their commitment to voter suppression (a key component of their long-term strategy for surviving demographic change) or to the anti-abortion cause (central to the partnership of the GOP with its cultural conservative base).

Its unclear if the timing will be right for a focus on these GOP threats in the midterms. Perhaps the 2021 voter-suppression wave will abate in Republican-controlled state legislatures next year, and the U.S. Supreme Court will hold off on undermining or even abolishing the right to choose an abortion. At present, though, its a decent bet that the iffy legal situation in Texas will keep pro-choice Americans fearful up to the time the Court is considering a frontal assault on abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. If as expected the hammer falls down on the right to choose in a June decision, it wont be hard for Democrats to make this a midterm election issue from the top to the bottom of the ballot, with Republicans trying to change the subject while counter-mobilizing their own anti-abortion base. Abortion policy could be a big deal in 2022.

Another apparently successful anti-recall message deployed by Gavin Newsom attacked Republican replacement candidates (especially Larry Elder) for hostility to essential COVID-19 measures. Heres an add based on that theme:

As Ron Brownstein points out, this approach takes advantage of the growing anger of vaccinated Americans especially very highly vaccinated seniors, who also tend to vote in higher proportions in non-presidential elections than younger people against those resisting vaccination and the politicians who defend them. This theme will most definitely be central to Democratic messaging in key states like Florida, Georgia, and Texas, where incumbent Republican governors have in varying degrees aligned themselves with anti-vaxxers to the peril of others (including, most recently, school children). But if it can work in California, it can work in other blue and purple states as well.

The big problem, of course, is our inability to know where we will be with COVID-19 in November of 2022, or even a few months earlier when the midterm campaign is in full swing. At this early point, the best thing about abrasively attacking anti-vaxxers is that it could do some good in the real world of public health, which in turn could help Biden and Democrats generally.

A much more traditional midterm approach for the party holding power in Washington would be to single out the party proposals that poll the best with the public or with key target constituencies, and then campaign like hell against the obstructionists in the other party who are denying (or who have tried to deny) these goodies to the American people. This time-tested strategy has the advantage of being party-unifying, while also if its effectively deployed lifting the presidents job-approval rating as well by identifying him with the most popular stuff in his agenda.

Trouble is, public perceptions of what the president and his party are trying to do are baked into his job-approval ratings already, and may be difficult to change given counter-messaging from the other side and from media outlets across the political spectrum. And as Democrats have come to understand over the years, even if voters really like an array of their policy initiatives taken in isolation, many of the same voters may fear they add up to socialism, or too much spending, or too much spending on people other than us.

In the end, Democratic midterm messaging will likely depend on what the party is most seriously trying to achieve: an against-the-odds House victory, or a win in selected Senate races, or victories in key state races, or mere damage mitigation. The worst approach would be to mix it all up or vacillate in order to appease everyone. So the time for donkeys to choose is growing near.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Visit link:
Democrats May Have to Change the Subject From Biden in 2022 - New York Magazine

Former U.S. Rep. Bill Clay from Missouri (second from left) with members of the Congressional Black Caucus May 24, 1971 in Washington. D.C. Clay was elected in 1968 after Black state lawmakers joined with Republicans to create a congressional map that included a majority African American 1st District. Also pictured: former Reps. Shirley Chisholm, Charles Diggs, Ron Dellums and Augustus F. Hawkins. Warren K Leffler/Getty Images hide caption

Former U.S. Rep. Bill Clay from Missouri (second from left) with members of the Congressional Black Caucus May 24, 1971 in Washington. D.C. Clay was elected in 1968 after Black state lawmakers joined with Republicans to create a congressional map that included a majority African American 1st District. Also pictured: former Reps. Shirley Chisholm, Charles Diggs, Ron Dellums and Augustus F. Hawkins.

Redistricting is often an exercise in party loyalty in which Republicans draw voting lines to benefit Republicans, while Democrats do the same for other Democrats, but in Missouri's 1st Congressional District more than 50 years ago, an unlikely alliance of state legislators changed those rules.

"It was tradition every 10 years for the legislature to create three congressional districts in the St. Louis metropolitan area," wrote former Congressman William Lacy Clay Sr. (who also goes by Bill Clay) in his 2004 book Bill Clay: A Political Voice at the Grassroots. That was when the population of Black residents would be spread out just enough to water down the potency of their vote.

Then, in the 1960s, more than a dozen Black legislators joined with Republicans and rural Democrats to create a congressional map that included a majority African American 1st District setting the stage for Bill Clay to win the seat in the 1968 election.

Today, Missouri's 1st Congressional District is the only one in the state with a plurality of Black voters.

Mike Jones, a former St. Louis alderman and a keen observer of St. Louis politics, says the continued alliance between Black Democrats and Republicans is necessary because white Democrats in St. Louis are openly hostile to African Americans gaining meaningful power. Jones says he knows this firsthand: He worked for an African-American St. Louis mayor and an African American St. Louis County executive who lost in Democratic primaries to white candidates.

"If you're Black in America doing politics, Republicans have a tendency to be existential enemies. And white Democrats are totally unreliable," Jones says.

Many Black Democrats, like Jones, also believe having an African American member of Congress makes it more likely to elect other Black officials down the ballot. And Jones says it's pretty obvious why Republicans are willing to work with Black Democrats in the redistricting process.

"Because white Democrats would like to spread out Black voters because they're reliable Democrats. Which means, it makes districts that Republicans have to run in more competitive."

Since the 1960s, two Black congressmen have represented the 1st District in Missouri Rep. Bill Clay and his son, William Lacy Clay Jr., who goes by Lacy Clay.

That all changed when Cori Bush, a Black progressive woman, defeated Lacy Clay last August in the Democratic primary. That meant that a Black woman from Missouri was poised to go to Congress for the first time.

And even though Bush still had to win a general election, that was a foregone conclusion since the St. Louis and St. Louis County-based 1st District is the most Democratic in the state, by far.

Former U.S. Rep. Lacy Clay rides in a car during the annual PrideFest parade in St. Louis, Missouri on June 28, 2015. Clay was defeated in the 1st District 2020 primary by current Rep. Cori Bush, also a Democrat. Michael B. Thomas/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Former U.S. Rep. Lacy Clay rides in a car during the annual PrideFest parade in St. Louis, Missouri on June 28, 2015. Clay was defeated in the 1st District 2020 primary by current Rep. Cori Bush, also a Democrat.

But that relationship between Black Democrats and Republicans is about to be put to the test when Missouri lawmakers go back into session in the coming months to redraw congressional boundaries.

This kind of allyship in redistricting has happened in other states. And while African American political leaders in St. Louis see it as a necessity to maintain power in a racially hostile political environment, others see it as a self-defeating strategy that leads to more Republicans being elected to Congress from Missouri which, they add, hurts Black people in the long run.

While the 1st District's demographics aren't likely to change significantly because of the Voting Rights Act, population loss will force its boundaries to expand into largely white suburbs. It's something that both Rep. Cori Bush and St. Louis' Black political leaders are watching with great interest.

"As an African American woman, I think it's imperative to be able to see representation," says state Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, a Democrat from St. Louis who serves on a committee looking into congressional redistricting. "You need to see yourself in these positions."

It should be noted that it took close to 50 years for Missouri's congressional map to shift from largely Democratic to largely Republican. Much of that can be traced to the state's rural areas souring on Democrats after decades of allegiance. But many Missouri Democrats have been hostile to the 1st District for packing many reliable Democratic voters into one area and making the suburban districts safer for the GOP.

Democratic state Rep. Donna Baringer, a Democrat from St. Louis, says the act of packing is part and parcel with a redistricting strategy that creates safe districts as opposed to competitive ones that are most accountable to voters. She said that voter frustration about not having their voices heard is directly tied to creating a bunch of safe districts.

"I tell them: 'It all comes down to redistricting,' " Baringer says. " 'If we're going to have packed seats, whether it be a House seat, Senate seat or congressional seat, you'll get exactly what you get for the next 10 years.' "

Jeff Smith, a former Democratic Missouri state senator who completed his master's thesis on redistricting and has a Ph.D. in political science, says that Black Democrats in Georgia and North Carolina also forged alliances with Republicans in the past to boost African American representation in their congressional delegation. But while those moves meant more Black people from those states were sent to Washington, D.C., it also resulted in maps that were more favorable to Republicans.

"If you believe that Black political interests are better served by having Black voices in power, then you could conceivably say this is a positive thing," Smith says. "If you believe that Black voices are best served by having the Democratic Party in a majority, these types of alliances have typically not been positive."

Yurij Rudensky, the redistricting counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, says some Black Democrats are turning down overtures from Republicans to create more majority-minority districts during redistricting. He pointed to how Stacey Abrams rejected such a deal when she was a member of the Georgia House.

"It is important for Black communities, particularly in the St. Louis area, to receive effective representation," Rudensky says. "Whether or not Black lawmakers need to create a political alliance with Republicans in order to make that happen is a different question."

Smith says it's very possible for a Black candidate to win in a district that is less than 50% African American, with some exceptions in the Deep South. Bush herself won in 2020 thanks to strong support in white parts of the district and much-improved performance in largely Black areas compared to her unsuccessful 2018 bid against Clay. And on the other side of the state, African American Congressman Emanuel Cleaver represents a Kansas City-based district that is not majority Black.

Rep. Cori Bush, a Democrat from Missouri's 1st District, speaks during a news conference to discuss proposed housing legislation outside the U.S. Capitol on March 11 in Washington, D.C. Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Cori Bush, a Democrat from Missouri's 1st District, speaks during a news conference to discuss proposed housing legislation outside the U.S. Capitol on March 11 in Washington, D.C.

But even if the Voting Rights Act wasn't a factor, former state Sen. Scott Rupp, who chaired a Senate redistricting committee in 2011, says there's not much incentive for Republicans to accede to Democratic wishes to reduce the 1st District's Black population.

"The typical alignment of groups and typical political alliances, it all gets thrown out the window," Rupp says. "And it all comes down to each individual member of Congress' self-preservation."

Because the 2020 census showed that the 1st District lost tens of thousands of people, Missouri lawmakers will have to expand into largely white suburbs. That wouldn't make Bush vulnerable in a primary against a white opponent in a one-on-one matchup, but depending on how the lines are drawn, it could have long-term consequences for who gets elected if Bush should decide to leave office.

For her part, Bush says protections such as the Voting Rights Act "have been helpful to make sure there's representation on a federal level for this community which, we deserve to have that."

But Bush adds that she didn't want to get into the hypotheticals of "where I would like the lines of my district to be drawn, or any district for that matter."

"Voters should pick their representatives," Bush says.

I don't believe that [Republicans] are looking at fairness or equity and equality and inclusion as they're making these decisions. I would hope that they would fix that.

U.S. Rep Cori Bush, Democrat from Missouri

Still, Bush says she's wary about Missouri Republicans who are in charge of the redistricting process. Not only did she point to other states, like Texas, that have passed what she calls "unfathomable, extremist" election laws, but she also notes that Missouri Republicans refused to follow through with voter-approved Medicaid expansion until the Missouri Supreme Court forced their hand.

"I'm extremely concerned about the anti-democratic tendencies, and I'm calling them anti-democratic ... of the Missouri Republican Party," Bush says. "I don't believe that they're looking at fairness or equity and equality and inclusion as they're making these decisions. I would hope that they would fix that."

Bush says she's hoping that Missouri Republicans conduct a redistricting process in the coming weeks that is inclusive and takes into account the voices of Black, Latino and Asian Missourians.

"They have to feel that representation because they're seeing it change their lives," Bush says.

Continued here:
To Redistrict, Missouri's Black Democrats And White Republicans Join Together - NPR

Glenn Youngkin thought he was talking to two fellow Republicans at a campaign stop last June when he laid out what he really wanted to do about abortion. Convinced he was talking to anti-abortion voters, the Republican pick for Virginia governor started laying out ideas that he said he couldnt campaign on for fear of alienating independent voters.

As two anti-abortion voters at the event pressed him on why his campaign wasnt taking a stronger stance against abortion, Youngkin praised their ideas for anti-abortion measures like a heartbeat bill and defunding Planned Parenthood as on the right track.

Can we take it to the abortionists, though? an unidentified man asked Youngkin.

Yeah, Im gonna be really honest with you, the short answer is in this campaign, I cant, Youngkin said. When Im governor and I have a majority in the House, we can start going on offense.

But the man and Youngkins interlocutor werent really Republicans, a subterfuge that became clear a few weeks later when hidden camera footage of his remarks aired on MSNBC. Youngkins Democratic opponent, former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, quickly hammered Youngkin over the video, claiming his views on abortion were out of step with voters in the purple state.

The Youngkin video and many others like it was the creation of Democratic operative Lauren Windsor, who has emerged over the past year as a lurking menace to Republican officials who think theyre just chatting with their ideological compatriots. By posing at public events as fervent conservative activists, Windsor and her compatriots at her YouTube channel, The Undercurrent, have recorded a number of Republican politicians in unguarded moments.

Windsor has caught Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) admitting there was nothing obviously skewed about the 2020 election in his home state, and Republican state legislators in Texas conceding their voting bills were intended to cement Republican power.

Windsors videos represent a new use on the left of hidden-camera footage, long the domain of right-wing activists. Windsor stepped up her use of hidden cameras after a run-in with the rights most prominent undercover sting artist: James OKeefe.

In 2016, Windsor was an associate at Democratic consulting firm Democracy Partners when an operative working for OKeefe allegedly became an intern at the group by using a fake name and resume. Project Veritas Action, a sister wing of OKeefes main Project Veritas group, later released videos that claimed to portray Democracy Partners founder Robert Creamer and a contractor discussing unsavory or illegal campaign tactics. The videos scrambled Democracy Partners election efforts and prompted Creamer to step back from 2016 campaign work.

In response, Windsor launched Project Veritas Exposed, an online dossier with pictures of known OKeefe operatives and associates. Liberal groups, fearful that theyve been infiltrated by someone working for OKeefe, can scour the database and compare job applicants against pictures on the site.

She smiles and acts like a friend, and they blurt out all this bullshit to her."

Democratic consultant Mike Lux, a fellow Democracy Partners co-founder

In 2017, Creamer and Democracy Partners sued OKeefe and Project Veritas over the alleged infiltration. The case is set to go to trial this December. Windsor, now a partner at Democracy Partners, has herself been deposed in the case. In a video released by Project Veritas, defense lawyers asked her about Creamers 2006 conviction on bank and tax charges and an incident where Windsor confronted the OKeefe operative who allegedly infiltrated Democracy Partners.

While Windsor has operated The Undercurrent as an online video outlet since 2012, she decided to start using more undercover video last year because of the Republican embrace of the baseless idea that Joe Biden stole the election.

I think theres just been an unprecedented ongoing threat to our democracy that undercover work helps to expose real intentions and motivations that you wouldnt be able to otherwise capture, Windsor told The Daily Beast. I think that threat merits doing that methodology more frequently.

In December, Windsor scored one of her first major hidden-camera victories when she recorded then-Sen.-elect Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) suggesting that he would oppose certifying the presidential election results in the Senate. The video was one of the first indications of a legislative Republican groundswell against acknowledging Donald Trumps defeat that would ultimately culminate in the Jan. 6 riot.

She smiles and acts like a friend, and they blurt out all this bullshit to her, said Democratic consultant Mike Lux, another Democracy Partners co-founder.

While OKeefe and his own hidden-camera videos are the most obvious analogues to Windsors own undercover videos, Windsor and her allies insist theres no comparing Windsors methods with Project Veritas.

Windsor declined to discuss the technical details of how she produces her videos, including how many people work with her. But she insists that her own tactics posing as a Republican at public events arent akin to OKeefes efforts, which can involve constructing entire fake personas and, in the case of Democracy Partners, alleged fake names and resumes.

Windsor also dinged OKeefes operation for its sting on political staffers, including low-ranking ones, rather than focusing on politicians themselves.

Ive seen very few videos where hes actually talked to an elected [official] directly, Windsor said. He has to settle with catching a staffer.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Creamer compared OKeefes alleged infiltration of Democratic groups using fake resumes and names to political spying operations like the Watergate bugging.

Shes not about infiltrating, shes not about spying, Creamer said. Shes about simply letting people tell you what they believe.

In a statement to The Daily Beast, Project Veritas disagreed.

Lauren Windsor has made her name by engaging in the very style of undercover journalism she decries as being a bridge too far when done by others, Project Veritas said in a statement. Unfortunately, those partisan patrons of Windsors undercover journalism are unable to objectively view and accept Windsors tactics for what they are, instead engaging in mental gymnastics to make her work palatable to their narrative.

Not all of Windsors activism takes place undercover. In July, Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz (FL) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) attempted to hold a press conference casting imprisoned Jan. 6 riot suspects as political prisoners, but were stymied when a protester began blowing a whistle. As Gaetz and Greene attempted to flee the scene, Windsor added to the shambolic scene by repeatedly shouting at Gaetz, who is allegedly the subject of a federal investigation into whether he had sex with a teenager, to ask whether he was a pedophile.

My being there and asking him if he was a pedophile was to really key in on the ridiculousness of the situation in the first place, Windsor said.

Read this article:
Meet the Democrats' Answer to James O'Keefe - The Daily Beast

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.

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

The SALT deduction, as the tax break is known, was pitched as a break for middle-class taxpayers in high-tax states most blue ones by giving them some relief on their taxes in the form of a federal tax deduction for state and local taxes they paid.

But a law ushered by the Trump administration capped deductions at $10,000, a move that mostly impacted the highest-earning residents of high-tax states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California because many top-earning taxpayers could no longer deduct the full amount of their local tax liability.

Now, as Democrats hash out the details of their budget plan a plan that will need near-unanimous support on their side of the aisle in both houses of Congress, given the Democrats razor-thin majorities some lawmakers are drawing a line in the sand on lifting or repealing that SALT deduction limit.

Leading the call to repeal the SALT deduction cap altogether is Tom Suozzi, a Democrat from New York.

That would be a great political victory because it would help a lot of people in my district and in many districts throughout the country, Suozzi said last week.

Certainly high earners in Suozzis district and elsewhere would reap the benefit of his proposal. But studies, including one by the Tax Policy Center, showed that 96 percent of the savings from the SALT deduction went to the top 20 percent of wage earners, proof that it is not at all a lifeline for the middle class.

On its face, it sounds good to say that Congress should offer tax relief during a pandemic, said Richard V. Reeves, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution.

But the people who will benefit from lifting the SALT cap are not the people who were hurt by the pandemic, Reeves said. If the idea here is to help the people who were hardest hit, then this is the least well-targeted policy in economic history because the pandemic disproportionately hit people in lower-income jobs.

Few, if any, essential front-line employees and wage workers who suffered the most economically over the last year and a half are in the position to claim enough itemized deductions to even qualify for the SALT deduction. And the top 20 percent didnt feel the pandemic pain in nearly the same way.

Margaret Boyle, spokeswoman for House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal, who is helping hash of the bill, said in an e-mail that Neal is continuing to work with members on a path forward on this issue.

Meanwhile, some of the wealthiest earners in several states, including Massachusetts, already got a big boost from state law workarounds to the SALT deduction caps, allowing them to still claim federal deductions for state and local taxes if they have a pass-through company that will let them do so.

That too is an unfortunate move depriving federal coffers of needed funding for other crucial programs, but it also undercuts the urgency of calls from Suozzi and others that the budget bill should be held up on this issue if states are acting on their own.

Lawmakers should draw their own line and send a clear message: There is no good time to push tax breaks for the rich at the expense of programs for the lower and middle classes. But during a pandemic recovery is the worst time.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Read more:
Its the worst time for Democrats to push tax breaks for the rich - The Boston Globe