Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats struck a chord with voters in the 2020 elections by campaigning on the need for the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes. Now the party is flirting with a major change in tax policy that would allow the wealthiest Americans to pay lower taxes.

A bloc of House Democrats, mostly from the New York area, are loudly withholding support for a broad package of tax increases to fund President Bidens infrastructure plan unless it also includes a tax cut: an unlimited deduction for state and local tax payments, or SALT.

In the narrowly divided House, it takes only a handful of Democrats to derail the presidents agenda by making common cause with do-nothing Republicans. In an open letter last week addressed to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, 17 of the 19 Democrats who represent New York threatened to do exactly that, writing that they reserve the right to vote against any tax increase that does not include a full repeal of the $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction, enacted in 2017.

A number of Democrats from other states, including New Jersey and California, have taken a similar stand. Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey held a news conference last week behind a lectern emblazoned with the logo No SALT, no dice.

Proponents of an unlimited SALT deduction say they are seeking to help middle-class taxpayers. If so, they should go back to the drawing board. The top 20 percent of American households, ranked by income, would receive 96 percent of the benefits of the change, according to a detailed analysis by the widely respected Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The primary beneficiaries would be an even smaller group of the very wealthiest Americans. The 1 percent of households with the highest incomes would receive 54 percent of the benefit, on average paying about $36,000 less per year in federal income taxes.

A tax cut with such a skewed distribution of benefits ought to be unacceptable to any politician genuinely concerned about the rise of economic inequality.

The federal government lets Americans reduce their taxable income either by a standard amount or by the amount spent on such categories as SALT, interest on mortgage loans and charitable contributions. The 2017 law imposed a $10,000 limit on the deductibility of SALT and a separate limit on mortgage interest deductions.

The SALT deduction cap is unfair. The deduction is often described as a federal subsidy for state and local governments because the federal government effectively is paying for a portion of each dollar in state and local taxes. Capping the deduction has the effect of providing a smaller subsidy, per dollar, to jurisdictions that collect more money in taxes.

New Yorkers, who pay higher taxes than most Americans, get more extensive and higher quality public services. Residents of other states choose lower taxes and less government. Federal tax policy should provide consistent support for either choice.

This board historically has opposed the elimination of the federal subsidy. But the rise of economic inequality has increased our focus on the distribution of taxation and led us to a different conclusion: Instead of eliminating the SALT deduction cap, Congress should eliminate the deduction.

The SALT deduction is an inefficient subsidy. The primary beneficiaries are the wealthy people who get a tax break. It would make more sense to collect those dollars from the wealthy and then to provide direct federal financial support to state and local governments.

Proponents of an unlimited SALT deduction have worked hard to portray the cap as a burden on a broad portion of the population. This is wrong in two important respects. First, the existence of the SALT deduction is the primary inequity. It shifts the distribution of taxation off the shoulders of the wealthy and onto the shoulders of the majority who do not make enough money to itemize tax deductions. The bigger the deduction, the greater the inequity.

Second, lifting the cap would primarily benefit the very wealthy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 16 percent of households making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually would benefit from an unlimited SALT deduction, but that the average benefit would be just $130. Almost everyone making more than a million dollars a year would benefit on average by more than $44,000.

The Biden administration has avoided taking a stand on the issue beyond indicating that proponents of a SALT deduction restoration would need to find a way to offset the lost revenue, estimated at almost $90 billion in 2021 alone. But it makes little sense to find another way of raising taxes on the rich so that the money can be returned to the same people.

Mr. Gottheimer, for example, proposed last week that the cost of the SALT plan could be offset by increased Internal Revenue Service enforcement to collect what people owe already. Is he seriously suggesting that his support for enforcement of the nations tax laws is contingent on a tax cut? The necessity of stronger tax enforcement is clear, but it ought to be pursued on the merits, and the government surely can find better uses for the money it collects.

Most members of this editorial board are paying more in federal taxes because of the SALT deduction cap. In a narrow financial sense, we would benefit from its repeal. But we believe in the broader benefits of progressive taxation, and in the necessity of concrete steps toward creating a more equal society. Members of Congress who have espoused those principles repeatedly now have an important opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity.

Read the original post:
Opinion | Why Are Democrats Pushing a Tax Cut for the Wealthy? - The New York Times

Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at http://www.umass.edu/poll

AMHERST, Mass. As federal law enforcement officials continue to announce charges and arrests related to the invasion of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, a new nationwide University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB poll released today finds that while a plurality of Americans hold former President Trump responsible for the violence and destruction that day, Republicans are more likely to pin the blame for the days events on Democrats.

The new poll of 1,000 respondents conducted April 21-23 found that Trump is viewed as most responsible for the violence at the Capitol, with 45% deeming the former president liable for the hours-long siege of the seat of American government. Trump is blamed by 79% of Democrats and one-third (32%) of independents, as well as solid pluralities or majorities of all races, ages, genders and income and education levels.

The Republicans who responded in the poll have an entirely different view, however. Nearly a third (31%) of Republicans blame the Democratic Party for the violence at the Capitol. Antifa the informal anti-fascist political activist group was blamed by over one-fifth (22%) of Republicans, while 16% blamed the U.S. Capitol Police, who have reported that over 70 officers were injured in the siege.

A little over 100 days since the shocking events that resulted in five deaths, scores of injured police officers, millions of dollars of damage to the U.S. Capitol and the temporary delay in the certification of the presidential election, close to 6-in-10 Americans describe the event as a riot, says Tatishe Nteta, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. Partisanship isa lens by which we see the political world, however, and unsurprisingly partisanship plays a central role in the ways that Americans describe the events that took place on January 6th.

Democrats are more likely to employ words such as insurrection, riot and coup, while Republicans describe the events in a more positive light, with 70% using the word protest.

Republicans also use different terms than the rest of the population to describe the participants in the days events. Overall, respondents used terms such as mob, rioters, white nationalists, insurrectionists, and terrorists. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans described them as protestors.

In the early hours of January 6th, a number of conservative media outlets labeled the participants as patriots, Nteta says.This characterization has seemed to stick as a shocking 35% of Republicans describe the participants as patriots.

The racial differences between how voters understand the January 6th events cannot be understated,says Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and associate director of the poll. About half of whites appeared to legitimate the activities by calling them protests compared to just a third of voters who belong to non-white racial groups. Instead, majorities of African Americans and Latinos called the participants white nationalists and rioters.

Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and associate director of the poll, observed, If there was any lingering doubt that Americans see the world through red or blue colored lenses, evaluations of the shocking events at the United States Capitol on January 6 should putit to rest. We all watched the same events, but we somehow saw very different things depending on our party identity.

Four months after the event, a wide majority of Americans want the authorities to continue seeking justice against those who stormed the Capitol that day, according to the poll.

With the assistance of the public, hundreds of participants in the events of January 6th have been arrested and close to two-thirds (65%) of the public supports continuing the efforts to identify, arrest and charge those responsible for damaging the U.S. Capitol building, Nteta says.

One-third of Republicans and 36% of Trump voters polled said that they opposed the ongoing efforts of federal law enforcement agencies to hold the Capitol invaders responsible, however.

Methodology

This University of Massachusetts Amherst / WCVB Poll of 1,000 respondents nationwide was conducted April 21-23 by YouGov. YouGov interviewed 1,151 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race and education. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements, using the person weights on the public use file.

The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and region. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles.

The weights were then post-stratified on 2016 Presidential vote choice, and a four-way stratification of gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories) to produce the final weight.

The margin of error within this poll is 3.4%.

Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at http://www.umass.edu/poll

See the original post:
Republicans Blame Democrats, Antifa and U.S. Capitol Police for Jan. 6 Mayhem, According to New UMass Amherst/WCVB Poll - UMass News and Media...

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

JERRY DAVIS, San Clemente

It is time to sort out some facts thatthe Party of Trump, formerly known as the Republican Party, is unwilling oruninterested in accepting.

Ballot harvesting has been used by Republicans.

Mitch McConnell, during his tenure as Senate majority leader, has rammed through lower court judges and Supreme Court justices. His anti-democracy moves included not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland.

Lower courtsunder a Republican President and Senatehavepacked the courts; in fact, 234 of Trumps nominees have been confirmed.

Republicans have very effectively used gerrymandering to draw safe districts. That, coupled with the Electoral College, have made it possible for Republicans to win electionswithout attaining the majority of votes, making it possible for America to be governed by a minority.

As far as the legitimacy of our election, 86 judges ruled that the 2020 election was without fraud. Lets not forget that the Republicans gained 10 seats in the House.

Voter rights are now under attack by red state governors and lawmakers. There are now over 300 laws introduced in red states to limit the right to vote. These include limiting the time allowed for voting and reducing the number of voting locations. There is even a law to make it illegal to pass out water and food to people waiting to vote.

I would like to hope that we can live in a community thataccepts facts, not dogma.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

The rest is here:
Letter to the Editor: Response to 'Democrats Undermining the Constitution' - San Clemente Times

Six House Democrats on Wednesday called for Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit DOJ rescinds Trump-era 'sanctuary cities' policy The Hill's Morning Report - Census winners and losers; House GOP huddles MORE to review the case of a lawyer who claims his yearlong house arrest is retaliation for his work against Chevron.

In a letter Wednesday, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezNYPD cancels use of robotic dog after backlash Trump supporter found guilty of threatening to kill lawmakers Six House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit MORE (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit OSHA sends draft emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 to OMB review Imperative that Democrats figure out what went wrong in 2020 MORE (D-Mich.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit Democrats seek to keep spotlight on Capitol siege Congress and the administration cannot play games with the Congressional Review Act MORE (D-Md.) called on Garland to review the case against Steven Donziger.

Donziger sued the energy company on behalf of Ecuadorian farmers and indigenous people and won $9.5 billion in an Ecuadorian court.

Chevron then took legal action against Donziger in the U.S. under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in the companys favor, and Donziger has been under house arrest since August 2019 over criminal contempt charges incurred during his appeal.

Kaplan took the unusual step of appointing private counsel to prosecute the case against Donziger after prosecutors with the Southern District of New York refused.

Seward & Kissel, the firm Kaplan named in the case, has at least two clients who have received significant funding from an investment fund whose vice chairman sits on Chevrons board, according to a filing from Donzigers lawyers.

We have deep concerns that the unprecedented nature of Mr. Donzigers pending legal case is tied to his previous work against Chevron. It is vital that attorneys working on behalf of victims of human rights violations and negative environmental impacts of corporations not become criminalized for their work. If these restrictions are permitted, advocates across this country will feel as though tactics of intimidation can succeed in stifling robust representation, the letter states.

The results of this case will have a lasting impact in the legal practice, suggesting that representation and advocacy can then impede ones ability to exercise fundamental protections, it adds.

A spokesperson for Chevron declined to comment.

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Updated at 8:23 p.m.

Go here to see the original:
Six House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit | TheHill - The Hill

Progressive Democrats in Congress will on Thursday introduce the Transform, Heal and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy (THRIVE) Act. The bill, which has been promoted for months, outlines a bold and holistic plan to address racial injustice, the climate crisis, and the economic anxiety and mass unemployment exacerbated by the pandemic. I think that for us the pandemic has sadly just showcased our belief that we need to figure out how to help people thrive and not just survive, says Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), one of the bills sponsors.

Bold may be an understatement. While President Bidens proposed infrastructure plan calls for spending $2 trillion over the next 10 years, the THRIVE Act green-lights the investment of $1 trillion annually. The money would go toward creating an estimated 15 million family-sustaining union jobs, rebuilding the nations physical and social infrastructure, and cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030. The bill gives particular attention to lifting up communities of color that have borne the brunt of racial and environmental injustice. Its putting forth this unified vision for a recovery that is deeply intersectional, that is extremely bold, and that meets the scale of these multiple crises that we face, adds Jayapal.

The THRIVE Act is being led by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) in the House of Representatives. The THRIVE Agenda will guide us as we mobilize on a transformative mission to bring justice and healing to our communities, Rep. Dingell said earlier this year. With a broad coalition of colleagues, advocates, and activists, we will save our environment and achieve the racial and economic equity that our nation demands.

The massive scale of the THRIVE Act means that it exists for now as more of a marker than something with a chance of passing through a Congress that cant even stomach far more moderate reform measures. But the same could be said of Green New Deal legislation, the principles of which are now largely supported by the American people. Lawmakers introducing the THRIVE Act are seeking to capitalize on this momentum, as well as the unique opportunity offered by a devastating year that has emphasized the imperative for equitable change.

I always used to say that if politics is the art of the possible, then its our job as activists to figure out how to move the boundaries of what people see as possible, Jayapal says. Thats what I feel like has happened with how the pandemic has combined with the racial justice movement, the economic justice movement, the climate justice movement, and the labor justice movement. All of those things have kind of come together and really created a different vision.

The allocation of the $1 trillion annual investment called for in the THRIVE Act would be guided by a 20-member board composed with representation from impacted communities, indigenous communities, and labor organizations.

The infrastructure upgrades will be geared around cutting emissions in half by 2030, and involve upgrading and expanding water systems, the electrical grid, wind power, solar power, electric vehicle infrastructure, and public transit. The bill holds that by the end of 2030 the majority of Americans will live within walking distance of clean, affordable, high-frequency public transit.

But the THRIVE Act isnt just a green infrastructure initiative that just tacks on a few racial justice measures. Instead, the bill is very much built around lifting up marginalized communities and righting the wrongs of years of environmental racism. There will be equitable hiring. There will be educational initiatives. There will be equity assessments and guardrails put up to prevent discrimination. Communities of color will be given the tools to sustain themselves on their own terms. The THRIVE Act holds that at least half of the $10 trillion in federal investment over the next 10 years will directly benefit those who have been most affected by systemic racism.

Indigenous communities have been given particular attention. The THRIVE Act was originally introduced as a resolution last September by then-Rep. Deb Haaland, who has since been confirmed as the first Native American secretary of the Interior. The bill is filled with language that centers indigenous people, ensuring they have autonomy over their lands. It also ensures free, prior, and informed consent, which means theyd need to sign off before something like, say, a massive pipeline is built through their lands.

Theres been a total abandonment of this nations duty to engage with each nation on an issue about these projects, Ashley Nicole Engle, the Green New Deal organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), says of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Tribes are not organizations. Were not special interest groups. Were individual sovereign nations within this larger nation.

The IEN is one of 15 environmental, labor, and justice groups that make up the Green New Deal Network, the progressive coalition that last year put together what it dubbed the THRIVE Agenda. Since Haaland introduced the THRIVE resolution last fall, it amassed over 100 sponsors before the THRIVE Act was announced in March.

The bills introduction on Thursday comes a day after Bidens first address to Congress, but Jayapal doesnt see the THRIVE Act as at odds with the administrations plans, placing them both on the continuum of progress and casting the bill as a blueprint for what is possible. I feel like the progressive movement and the president himself and the people around the president have really moved miles in terms of how they see these crises and what hes put forward between the jobs and the families plan is incredibly progressive and quite far along on the spectrum, she says. However, obviously, we feel like we need even more than we need it faster.

Part of what makes the THRIVE Act unique is its attention to organized labor, and the creation of not just jobs, but family-sustaining jobs. Democrats have long been criticized for glossing over the impact green-economy initiatives like the THRIVE Act will have on those losing their jobs. Remember in 2016 when Hillary told West Virginias that, Were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business? The comment was taken out of context (Clinton went on to detail her plan for a just transition), but the gaffe fed into the idea that Democrats were treating fossil-fuel workers like disposable pawns, and that reimagining the economy to take on the climate crisis is at odds with sustaining their livelihoods. Its hard enough to believe in promises from a political candidate. Its even harder when it could mean losing your job.

The deindustrialization of the country has created a lot of cynicism about both the role corporations and government played in really creating a transition for those manufacturing workers, says Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is also part of the Green New Deal Network. Thats why we are so fierce in saying they cant just be any old job. They have to be living wage jobs where workers have the opportunity to form a union.

But there have been some recent signs that the fossil-fuel workers could be coming around to the idea of transitioning to a green economy. Last week, United Mine Workers of America President Cecil E. Roberts told The New York Times that he would be open to a transition so long as there are available jobs in renewable energy and the government provides aid to newly out-of-work miners. Were on the side of job creation, of a future for our people, Roberts said. If that isnt part of the conversation at the end of the day, well be hard pressed to be supportive.

Biden has anchored his climate action in the creation of good jobs that people can actually feed their families on as opposed to creating a green energy sector that is poverty wage, Henry explains. I think thats created a huge shift in the labor movement thinking. Yes, were not going to have the same mining jobs in West Virginia, but what jobs can exist as we rebuild physical infrastructure and open up solar and wind.

The THRIVE Act isnt likely to make it through Congress as a single piece of legislation and cure what ails America, but, as Jayapal puts it, its providing a vision for what the nation can see as possible. A decade ago few in the Democratic establishment would have dreamed of even considering the idea of transitioning to an economy predicated on clean energy. Nevertheless, the ideals put forth in Green New Deal legislation have seeped into the policies of the Biden administration, to the policy preferences of average Americans and, increasingly, into what fossil-fuel workers see as sustainable not just for the country, but for their own livelihoods.

I always remind people that sometimes in organizing and progressive movements it feels like youre not making progress, or its too slow and too slow and too slow, Jayapal says. Then suddenly theres a tipping point. Theres something that happens in the outside environment that wakes people up, which I think the pandemic has done. The movement has been building and building and building, and so its ready for that moment when that tipping point occurs, and it can quickly jump into action. I feel like thats where we are and were always going to want more, but weve moved so dramatically. Its really exciting.

More:
Democrats Are Releasing a Massive Green Jobs and Justice Plan. Heres Whats In It - Rolling Stone